Skip to main content

Full text of "Attic orators from Antiphon to Isaeus, volume 1"

See other formats







R. C. J EBB, Litt.D. 



'-'VOL.. I 



All rights reserved 


First Edition printed 1S76 
Second Edition iSgj 




i.adv mar<:;aret professor of divinity in the university ok CAMBRIDGE, 






cbc (\nhp gkA&moc dAoinopeooN &Y s r&'zeT<M ctp. 

rAynToyc tgxnitcon tcon n&poc epr& koAoccoy'c, 

acyxoic MopcJ><Mci noon <j>eiMeNcoN eS&rreAAoMeNOYC gt eoyciN, 

oyAe <J)peciN Ay'n<vt<m ttco cymm&GgTn 

oToc &p' hn d Bfoc 

dndeeN 6' &i 4>poNTiAec 

toon t&A' eSeipr&CM^NcoN* 

&AA& AeyccooN OeAreTM ec tgAoc gn Gymcp AaBion <nnt. 

k<\AAoc ti tt&nt&pxon, ckottg'gi Ae tt&nhm&p 

t<\n npocconoic 4><mApon gcJ^gzomg'n&n toTc haaiGg'oici r&A&N&N 

k&i mgAg'con &BpoN gy'pyOmoon cGgnoc, 

6K A J dAoAy^e x&peic, 

aa&kpoc, d> kAginoi, xponoc 



Tc mgngi YMGTepA, Gaym' anAp&cin &AAoA<mtoTc 
of cg'A&c oyk i'Aomgn xpycanioy 
ta npiN ecj) 5 'EAA<\Ai <$>oiBoy, 


YMMI P^P &GAlON Mg'n 4>AAA! AgAyKGN<M, OyA' €M\\£N CKo'tON, 

aAA<n A&mttoyc' ^G&n&toi x^P'tgc 
Agykan npdc &ktTn 'Ecttg'poy. 


The first object of this book is to offer a contribution 
to a chapter in the history of Greek Literature which 
has perhaps received less attention than its import- 
ance deserves. The oratorical branch of Attic prose 
has a more direct and more fruitful relation to the 
general development than modern analogies would 
suggest. To trace the course of Athenian oratory 
from its beginnings as an art to the days of its 
decline is, necessarily, to sketch the history of Greek 
prose expression in its most widely influential form, 
and to show how this form was affected by a series 
of causes, political or social. 

The second object of the book is to supply an aid 
to the particular study of the Attic orators before 
Demosthenes. The artistic development of Attic 
oratory is sketched as a whole. But a separate 
and minute treatment is given only to Antiphon, 
Anclocides, Lysias, Isocrates and Isaeus. The period 
thus specially determined has more than a corre- 
spondence with a practical need : it has an inner 
unity, resting on grounds which are stated in the 


Introduction and which are illustrated at each staoje 
of the subsequent inquiry. 

As regards the former and larger of these two 
purposes, the writer may venture to hope that his 
attempt, however imperfect, will he recognised at 
least as one for which, in this country, there is room. 
The History of Greek Literature by Otfried Midler 
— translated and continued by Donaldson — had been 
carried only to Isocrates when the author died, 
at the early age of forty-three, in 1840. Midler's 
chapters on " The beginnings of regular Political and 
Forensic Oratory among the Athenians" (xxxiii), 
on " The new cultivation of Oratory by Lysias " 
(xxxv), and on "Isocrates" (xxxvi), are, relatively 
to the plan of his work, very good : that is, they 
state clearly the chief characteristics of each writer 
separately. But this very plan precluded a full 
examination of each writer's works, and even a full 
discussion of his style. Nor does Miiller appear to 
have regarded Oratory otherwise than as strictly a 
department, or adequately to have conceived its 
relation to the universal prose literature, The 
materials for a more comprehensive estimate had 
already been brought together in Westermanns 
Geschichte cler Beredsamkeit, which carries the 
chronicle of technical rhetoric and of eloquence to 
the days of Chrysostom. But this great work is 
rather a storehouse of references than properly a 
history ; and, owing to its vast compass and its 


annalistic method, gives too little space, propor- 
tionally, to the best period of Athens. Westermann's 
thesaurus and Midler's sketch have recently been 
supplemented by the excellent works of Dr. F. Blass : 
(l) "Die Attische Beredsamkeit von Gorgias bis zu 
Lysias," 1868: (2) " Isokrates und Isaios," 1874— 
of which the latter came into my hands only after 
my own chapters on Isocrates were almost wholly 
printed. I desire here to record in general terms 
my obligations to both these works. Particular 
debts are in every case, so far as I know, acknow- 
ledged on the page where they occur. 

For the analyses of the orations it seemed best- 
to adopt no uniform scale, but to make them more 
or less full according to the interest of the subject- 
matter or the nature of its difficulties. In analysing 
the works of Isocrates, which abound in matter of 
literary or historical value, I have endeavoured to 
give the whole of the contents in a form easy of 
access, and, at the same time, to preserve the most 
characteristic features of expression. A careful 
analysis, whether copious or not, is necessarily to 
some extent a commentary, since the analyst must 
exhibit his view of the relation in which each part 
of the writer's meaning stands to the rest. 

In this sense, I hope that the analyses will 
serve my second and more special purpose — to help 
students of these five orators who have nothing but 
a Greek text before them. Critical scholarship in 


England has clone some of its best work on the 
orators before Demosthenes. The names of John 
Taylor, Markland, Robert Tyrwhitt, Dobree, Dobson, 
Churchill Babington — to mention only a few — are 
proof enough. But it is long since the orators before 
Demosthenes have been taken into the ordinary 
course of reading at our schools and universities. 
The commentary of Mr. Sandys on Isocrates Ad 
Demonicum and Panegyricus is (so far as I know) 
alone in this country. Frohberger's selections from 
Lysias, Schneider s selections from Isocrates, Rauchen- 
stein's selections from Lysias and from Isocrates, 
Bremi's selections from Lysias and from Aeschines, 
are representative of the German feeling that these 
Greek orators should be read by ordinary students. 
The principal reason why they have dropped out of 
school and university favour among ourselves is 
perhaps not difficult to assign. Demosthenes and 
(in his measure) Aeschines have a political and 
historical interest of a kind which every one recog- 
nises, and which lends dignity to ancient prose in 
the eyes of a public that is rather political than 
philological. Many speeches which Demosthenes did 
not write have long been studied anions us in the 
belief that they were composed by that statesman ; 
while, on the other hand, comparatively few know, 
or comprehend, the conjecture of Mr. Freeman that 
every Athenian ecclesiast was equal in political 
intelligence to an average Member of Parliament. 


111 truth, an oration taken at hazard from Antiphon, 
Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates or Isaeus, will often be 
poor food for the mind if it is read alone. What is 
necessary to make it profitable is some idea of the 
world in which it was spoken. These orators w r ho 
were not conspicuous actors in history must be read, 
not fragmentarily or in the light of notes which 
confine themselves to explaining what are termed 
" allusions," but more systematically, and with some 
general comprehension of the author and the age. 
Brougham, one of the best and most diligent critics 
of ancient oratory, himself tells us that he could not 
read Isaeus : — "the total w T ant of interest in the 
subject, and the minuteness of the topics, has always 
made a perusal of them so tedious as to prevent us 
from being duly sensible of the force and keenness 
with which they are said to abound." If, however, 
Brougham had considered Isaeus, not as merely a 
writer on a series of will-cases, but as the oldest and 
most vivid witness for the working of inchoate 
testation in a primitive society, and, on the other 
hand, as the man who, alone, marks a critical phase 
in the growth of Attic prose, it is conceivable that 
Brougham should have thought Isaeus worthy of the 
most attentive perusal. 

The present attempt to aid in giving Attic 
Oratory its due place in the history of Attic Prose 
was begun in the summer of 1870, and has since 
employed all the time that could be spared to it 


from the severe and almost incessant pressure of 
other occupations. In addition to the works of 
Dr. Blass, I would name the exhaustive work of 
Arnold Schafer, Demosthenes unci seine Zeit, as one 
which has been my constant help. M. Perrot's 
" L'Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes : 
l ere Partie, Les Precurseurs de Demosthene," and 
Mr. Forsyth's Hortensius, also claim my gratitude. 
Among particular aids, I must mention the Essay 
on Isocrates, by M. Havet, prefixed to M. Cartelier's 
translation of the nrepl avri&ocreoos, — an acknowledg- 
ment which is the more due since, by an inadvertence 
for which I would fain atone, the essay is ascribed at 
p. 43 of my second volume, not to its true author, 
but to the scholar whose memory he has so loyally 
served. The article of Weissenborn on Isaeus in 
Ersch and Gruber s Encyclopaedia, the editions of 
Isaeus by Schomann and Scheibe, and the edition 
of the two Speeches On the Crown by MM. Simcox, 
must be added to the list. I am glad that my 
Introduction was not printed too soon to profit by 
some of Air. Watkiss Lloyd's remarks on Pericles. 
The authorities, general or particular, not specified 
above will be found in a list which is subjoined. If 
an obligation anywhere remains unacknowledged, I 
would beg my readers to believe that it is by an 
oversight which I should rejoice to have the oppor- 
tunity of repairing. 

Last, though not least, I have to thank my 


friend Mr. Sandys for his help in revising some of 
the earlier sheets of the book for the press, as well 
as for several valuable suggestions. 

It seems probable that the study of antiquity, 
especially of the Greek and Latin languages and 
literatures, so far from declining, is about to enter 
on a larger and a more truly vigorous life than it 
has had since the Eevival of Letters. That study 
has become, in a new and fuller sense, scientific. 
The Comparative Method, in its application to 
Language, to Literature, to Mythology, to Political 
or Constitutional History, has given to the classics 
a general interest and importance far greater than 
they possessed in the clays when the devotion 
which they attracted was most exclusive. For the 
present, indeed, during a time of transition, the 
very breadth of the view thus opened is apt to be 
attended by a disadvantage of its own. So long as 
the study given to ancient Greece or Eome was 
practically confined to the short periods during 
which the literature of either was most brilliant, 
'this study was often narrow, perhaps, but it w T as 
usually searching and sympathetic, The great 
masters in each kind were known at close quarters. 
Their excellence was not something taken on credit, 
as giving them their claim to a place in a rapid 
survey. It was apprehended and felt. Paradoxes 
as to their relative merits were, therefore, not so 
easily commended to educated opinion in the name 


of a revolt from academical prescription. 1 remember 
to have seen an ingenious travesty of " The Last 
Days of Pompeii/' in which the sorcerer Arbaces 
had occasion to recite the praises of his countrymen, 
the Egyptians. "The Greeks," Arbaces sang, "are 
wonderfully clever ; but we have invented the 
Greeks." Goethe said that Winckelmann had 
"found" the antique; but it appears sometimes to 
be forgotten that this merit is essentially distinct 
from that intimated by the Egyptian. In the mean- 
time, I am persuaded that any one will be doing- 
useful work who makes a contribution, however 
slight, to that close study of the best Greek literature 
which ought ever to be united with attention to 
the place of Greece in the universal history of the 
mind. In these things, as in greater still, the words 
are true. " Securus iudicat orbis terrarum." 

The University, Glasgow, 

November 1875. 


I. Classical Texts 

1. Greek 

Oratores Attici. 


Comicorum Frag- 

Diogenes Laertius. 
Dionysius of Hali- 









J. G. Baiter and Hermann Sauppe, 1850. Vol. I. : 
Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, 
Lycurgus, Aeschines, Deinarchus, Demosthenes. 
Vol. II. : Scholia to Isocrates, Aeschines, Demo- 
sthenes, and the Fragments of the Orators, from 
Gorgias to Demetrius Phalereus, arranged, with 
comments, by Sauppe. Hypereides, ed. F. Blass, 
1869 (Teubner). — For the text, I have consulted 
also : — 1. Oratores Attici, ed. Imm. Bekker, 1828. 
— 2. Oratores Attici, ed. G. S. Dobson, with notes 
by H. Stephens, J. J. Scaliger, J. Taylor, J. 
Markland, J. J. Reiske, A. Anger, etc., 1828. — 
3. Antiphon, Andocides, Deinarchus, ed. F. Blass, 
and Isaeus, ed. C. Scheibe, in Teubner's series. 

Imm. Bekker, edition of the Imperial Academy of 
Berlin, 1831-1870. The Rhetoric, with Com- 
mentary, L. Spengel, 1867. 

J. Schweighauser, 1801-1804. 

F. H. Bothe, 1855 (Didot). 

L. Dindorf and C. Midler (Didot). 

C. G. Cobet, 1862 (Didot). 

J. J. Reiske, 1774. (Also text in the series of C. 

Tauchnitz, 1829.) 
Btot (fiiXoo-ocjxov Kal crocf)L(TTujv. J. F. Boissonade, 

Amsterdam, 1822. 
W. Dindorf, 1850. 
J. Alberti, 1746. 
Imm. Bekker, 1853. 
L. Dindorf (Didot), 1845. 
C. L. Kayser, 1844. 
Imm. Bekker, 1824. 



Plutarch, Parallel 

[Plutarch] Lives of 

the Ten Orators. 
Bhetores Graeci. 

Sextus Empiricus. 



J. G. Baiter, J. C. Orelli, and A. G. Winckelmarm, 

Imm. Bekker, 1855. 

In Plutarchi Moralia, ed. F. Diibner (Didot), 1868. 

Imm. Bekker, 1846. 

(1) For Anaximenes, Aphthonius, Aristeides Rhetoric, 
Demetrius Trepl eppLrjvetas, Hermogenes, Longinus, 
Theon, and the writer Trepl vxf/ovs : — Rhetor es 
Graeci, ed. L. Spengel, 3 vols., 1853. (2) For 
the scholia, and for the lesser writers generally : 
— -Bhetores Graeci, ed. C. Walz, 9 vols., 1832. 

7T/309 roi'9 paOrniaTLKovs aVTLppijTlKOl. J. A. 
Fabricius, Leipzig, 1718. 

Anthology, 4 vols. ; Eclogues, 2 vols., ed. A. Meineke 
(Teubner), 1860. 

C. Miiller and F. Diibner (Didot), 1853. 

G. Bernhardy, 1853. 

Imm. Bekker, 2nd ed., 1868. 

G. Sauppe, 1865. 



Lucilius, Frag- 
ments of. 

Rhetorica ad 

Be Oratoribus 

2. Latin 

Opera omnia (with the incerti Rhet. ad Herennium), 

C. F. A. Nobbe, Leipzig, 1869. 
Rhetorica (Be Inventione, 1. ii.), with the Rhet ad 

Her., F. Lindemann, Leipzig, 1828. 
Be Orator e, 1. in. C. W. Piderit, Leipzig, 4th ed., 

Brutus cle claris oratoribus, C. W. Piderit, Leipzig, 

2nd ed., 1875. 
Partitiones Oratoriae, C. W. Piderit, Leipzig, 1867. 
Be Optimo Geneve Oratorum (with Orator), 0. Jahn, 

Berlin, 3rd ed., 1869. 
Mart. Hertz (Teubner), 1853. 
In L. Miiller's Saturarum Reliquiae, 1872. 

E. Bonnell (Teubner), 1868; commentary — Spald- 
ing, Buttmann, Bonnell, and Zumpt ; bks. i.-vi. 
Leipzig, 1798-1834. 

F. Lindemann (see above), Leipzig, 1828. 

In Tacitus, ed. J. G. Orelli, 1846. 


II. Other Authorities 1 

Histoire Critique de V Eloquence chez les Grecs. Paris, 

Voyage du jeune Anacharsis en Grece. Paris, 1788. 
Andohides, ilbersetzt unci erlautert. 1832. 
Xenophon der jiingere und Isohrates. Posen, 1872. 
De Hiatu in Oratoribus Atticis et Historicis Graecis. 

Ueber das genus dicendi tenue des Redners Lysias. 

Ciistrin, 1871. 
Isohrates Werhe, Griechisch und Deutsch. 1854. 
Led ures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. London, 1783. 
Die Attische Beredsamheit von Gorgias bis zu Lysias. 

Leipzig, 1868. 
Isohrates und Isaios. 1874. 
Die Griechische Beredsamheit in dem Zeitraum von 

Alexander bis auf Augustus. 1865. 
Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener. 2nd ed., 1851. 
Demosthenes, Lyhurgos, und ihr Zeitalter. 

De aliquot locis Isocraiis. Freiburg, 1843. 
Lysiae et Aeschinis Orationes selectae. 1826. 
Rhetorical and Literary Dissertations and Addresses. 

The Philosophy of Rhetoric. 7th ed., 1823. 
Le Disco urs cVIsocrate sur lui-meme (with Introduc- 
tion by E. Ha vet), 1862. 
Fasti Hellenici. 3 vols., 1834-1851. 
Novae Lectiones. 1858. — Variae Lectiones. 1873. 
The Sophists, in Journ. of Class, and Sacred Philology, 

I. 145 : On the Sophistical Rhetoric, ib. II. 129, 

III. 253. 
Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric. 1867. 
Plato's Gorgias, literally translated, with cm Introduc- 
tory Essay. 1864. 
Tagore Law Lectures for 1870. Calcutta, 1870. 
History of Greece. Vols. I. and II., 1874. 
History of Greece, translated by A. W. Ward. 5 

vols., 1868-1872. 
Adversaria. 2 vols., 1831. 
Ancient Athens. 1873. 

De Epitaphio Lysiae f also tributo. Berlin, 1865 (?). 
Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae. 1795. 
Greece under the Romans, B.C. 146-a.d. 716. 2nd 

ed., 1857. 

1 The following list does not claim to represent the literature of the subject. 
My purpose has been to set down every book — whether it has been expressly 
quoted or not — to which I am conscious of having owed help. 

Belin de Ballu, 

J. N. 
Barthelemy, J. J. 
Becker, A. G. 
Beckhaus, H. 
Benseler, G. E. 

Bering, F. 

Blair, H. 
Blass, F. 

Boeckh, A. 
Boelmecke, G. 

Brause, R. T. 
Bremi, J. H. 
Brougham, Lord. 

Campbell, G. 
Cartelier, A. 

Clinton, H. Fynes. 
Cobet, C. G. 
Cope, E. M. 

Cowell, Herbert. 
Cox, G. W. 
Curtius, E. 

Dobree, P. P. 
Dyer, T. H. 
Eckert, H. 
Ernesti, J. C. T. 
Finlay, G. 


Forsyth, W. 

Francken, C. M. 
Franz, J. 

Freeman, E. A. 

Frohberger, H. 
Gladstone, W. E. 
Grote, G. 

Hecker, A. 

Henn, P. 
Holmes, A. 
Holscher, L. 
Hume, D. 
Jones, Sir W. 

Jowett, B. 

Kirclilioff, A. 
Kyprianos, A. 
Le Beau, A. 
Leloup, P. J. 
Liebmann, J. A. 
Lightibot, J. B. 

Ljungclahl, S. 

Lloyd, W. W. 
Macaulay, Lord. 

Madvig, J. N. 
Maine, H. S. 
Meier and Scho- 

Mitchell, T. 

Miiller, K. 0. 

Mure, W. 

Chicken, W. 
Ottsen, P. G. 

Hortensius : an Historical Essay on the Office and 

Duties of an Advocate. 1874. 
Commentationes Lysiacae. Utrecht, 1865. 
Dissertatio de locis quibusdam Lysiae arte critica per- 

sanandis. Munich, 1830. 
Historical Essays. Second Series, 1873. 
History of Federal Government. Vol. L, The Greek 

Fede ra tio ns, 1863. 
Lysias ausgeivdhlte Redan. 1868. 
Studies on Homer. 1858. 
History of Greece, ed. 1870. 

Quaestionum Hyperidearum capita duo. Leipzig, 1870. 
De Graecitate Hyperidea. 
De Oratione in Eratostheneni XXXvirum Lysiae f also 

tributa. 1847-8. 
De Isocrate rhetor e. Koln, 1861. 
Demosthenes De Corona. 1871. 
Quaestiunculae Lysiacae. Herford, 1857. 
Essay XII., Of Eloquence. 
The Speeches of Isceus, with a Prefatory Discourse, etc. 

The Dialogues of Plato, translated into English, with 

Analyses and Introduction. 1st ed. 1871, and 

2nd ed. 1875. 
Andocidea, in Hermes, I. 1-20. 
Ta ^Airoppi^Ta rov 'IcroKparoi's. Athens, 1871. 
Lysias Epitaphios als edit erwiesen. Stuttgart, 1863. 
Prolegomena in Isocratis Philippic um. 1825. 
De Isaei Vita et Scriptis. Halle, 1831. 
On Hyperides, in Joum. of Class, and Sacred Philo- 
logy, IV. p. 318. 1859. 
De transeundi gcneribus quibus utitur Isocrates com- 

mentatio. Upsala, 1871. 
The Age of Pericles. 1874. 
On the Athenian Orators (in Miscellaneous Writings, 

Vol. I.) 1860. 
Adversaria, Vol. I. 
Ancient Law. 5th eel., 1874. 
Der Attische Process. 1824. 

Indices Graecitatis Oratorum Graecorum (after Reiske). 

Hist org of the Literature of Ancient Greece, translated 

and continued by J. W. Donaldson. 1858. 
A Critical History of the Language and Literature of 

Ancient Greece. 1857. 
Isokrates und Athen. Heidelberg, 1862. 
De rerum inventione ac dispositione quae est in Lysiae 

atque Antiphontis orationibus. Flensburg, 1847. 


Overbeck, J. 

Paley, F. A., and 

J. E. Sandys. 
Pater, W. H. 
Perrot, G. 

Pfund, J. G. 
Philippi, A. 

Rauchen stein, R. 


Roelfzema, C. H. 

B. H. 
Ruhnken, D. 


Sandys, J. E. 
Sanneg, P. 
Schafer, A. 
Schirach, G. B. 
Schmitz, P. J. A. 

Schneider, 0. 
Schomann, G. F. 

Schroder, H. P. 
Sidgwick, H. 

Simcox, G. A. 
Simcox, W. H. 
Sluiter, J. 0. 
Spengel, L. 
Stallbanm, G. 

Starke, F. A. H. 

Strang, J. G. 

Syraonds, J. A. 

Taylor, John. 

Telfy, J. B. 
Thirlwall, C. 
Thompson, W. H. 

Geschichte cler Griechischen Plastik. 1869. 

Die Antiken Schriftquellen zur Gesch. der Bildenden 

Kilnste bei den Griechen. 1868. 

Select Private Orations of Demosthenes. Part I. 
Cambridge, 1874. 
Studies in the History of the Renaissance. . 1873. 
V Eloquence Politique et ludiciaire a Athenes : Pre- 
miere Partie, Les Precurseurs de De'mosthene. 1873. 
Demosthene et ses Contenvporains (Revue des Deux 

Mondes, June 15, 1873). 
Be Isocratis Vita et Scriptis. Berlin, 1833. 
Beit rage zu einer Geschichte des Attischen Biirgerrechtes. 

Berlin, 1870. 
Ausgeiocihlte Beden des Lysias. 1864. 
Isokrates, Pa negyricus, A reopagiticus. 1864. 
Annotationes in Isocratis Evagoram. Groningen, 

Historia Critica Orator um Graecorum, in his Opuscula. 
Disputatio de Antiphonte, ib. 

Isocrates. Ad Demonicum et Panegyricus. 1868. 
De Schola Isocratea. Halle, 1867. 
Demosthenes unci seine Zeit. 1856. 
De vita et genere scribendi Isocratis. 1766. 
Animadversiones in Isocratis Panathenaicum. Mar- 
burg, 1835. 
Isokrates ausgewcihlte Beden. 1860. 
Commentarii in Isaeum (appended to an edit, of the 

text). Greisswald, 1831. 
Quaestiones Isocrateae cluae. Utrecht, 1859. 
The Sophists: in Journal of Philology, IV. p. 288. 


The Orations of Demosthenes and Aeschines On the 
Crown, with hit roductory Essays and Notes. 1872. 
Lectiones Andocideae (with C. Schiller's notes). 1834. 
2i>vaytoy?) Te^vwv, sive Artium Scriptores. 1828. 
Lysiaca ad illustrandas Phaedri Platonici origines. 

De Isocratis Orationibus Forensibus Comment ationis 

Specimen. 1845. 
Kritische Bemerkungen zu den Beden des Isokrates. 

Studies of the Greek Poets. 1873. 
Renaissance in Italy : Age of the Despots. 1875. 
lectiones Lysiacae (in Dobson's Oratores Attici, Vol. 

II. pp. 94-158. 1828). 
^vvaytoyrj twv 'Attikwv voptov. Pesth, 1868. 
History of Greece, ed. of 1855. 
On the Philosophy of Isocrates, and his Relation to the 

Socratic Schools. Appendix II. to edition of 


Plato's Phaedrus, 1868. Also the Introductions 

to the Phaedrus and the Gorgias (1871), and the 

Commentary on both Dialogues. 
Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer. Berlin, 1872. 
Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik. Halle, 1873. 
Diatribe in Lysiae Orationem in Nicomachum. 

Leyden, 1839. 
Les Harangues de Demosthene (with Introd. and 

Commentary). 1873. 
Iscius, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopaedia, Section 

II., Part 38, pp. 286-310. 
Geschichte der Griechischen Beredsamkeit. 1835. 
Elements of Rhetoric. 7th ed., 1866. 
National Education in Greece. 1873. 

Volkmann, E. 
Wackernagel, W. 
Weijers, P. V. 

Weil, H. 

Weissenborn, H. 

Westermann, A. 
Whately, E. 
Wilkins, A. S. 





The Augustan Atticism .... 

Caecilius and Dionysius .... 

Caecilius on the Attic Orators 

The decade ...... 

Dionysius on the Attic Orators . 

His classification — the evperac and the TeAe curat 

Plan of this book ..... 

The English word " orator " compared with the Latin, and 

with the Greek word prjrup 
Significance of the term " rhetor " 
Kelation between ancient oratory and ancient prose 
Kelation between ancient and modern oratory 
Ancient oratory is a fine art 

I. Internal Evidence : 1. Finish of form ; 2. Repetitions 

3. Speakers criticise each other's style . 

II. External evidence : 1. Training of speakers : 2. Apprecia 

tion shown by hearers ; 3. Pamphlets in the oratorical 
form ; 4. Collections of commonplaces ; 5. Ancient 
critics compare oratory with sculpture or painting . 

This conception is originally Greek ..... 

Its basis — the idealisation of man ..... 

Its secondary motives : (1) the oral tradition of poetry ; (2) 
the civil importance of speech ; (3) competition 

Characteristics of modern oratory ..... 













Aristotle on the three instruments of rhetorical proof (77 terns) Lxxvii 
His estimate is that of the modern world : modern Oratory 

puts the logical proof first ...... ib. 

The modern speaker has no distinct acceptance as an artist . lxxviii 

The ancients were less strict about logical relevance . . ib. 

Influence of perfect reporting for the Press .... Ixxix 

The modern feeling that a great speech must be extemporary . ib. 
Sources of this feeling : 1. the failures of premeditation ; 

2. the Hebraic basis of Christian education . . . ib. 
Modern approximations to the theory of ancient Oratory : 

influence of debate ....... lxxxi 

Finished rhetorical prose — Canning ..... ib. 

Union of rhythmical finish with passion : Grattan — Erskine — 

Burke ......... lxxxii 

Brougham on Burke compared with Demosthenes . . . lxxxvi 

Modern eloquence of the pulpit ...... Ixxxvii 

Modern Oratory — its greatest triumphs won by sudden bursts Ixxxviii 

Use of quotation ........ Ixxxix 

Special characteristics of Greek Oratory .... xc 

All Greek art has the plastic character . . . . . ib. 

Popular misconception of what is meant by " plastic " . . xci 

A result of this misconception ...... ib. 

Consequent danger to the whole study of the antique . . xcii 
Character of Greek thought in the best days of Greek art, 

compared with the oriental and with the mediaeval . ib. 
Greek reflection was at a happy pause, and the Greeks were 

beautiful ......... xciv 

Why Greek art became plastic rather than picturesque . . ib. 
Series of the arts — Sculpture comes between Architecture 

and the romantic group (Painting, Music, Poetry) — 

The limit of expression in Sculpture — not irksome, 

but congenial to the Greek ..... ib. 

The best Sculpture is not cold nor vague .... xevi 
Mistake of conceiving Greek Tragedy as the daughter of 

Sculpture ......... ib. 

They are sister forms of that one tendency which we call 

" plastic ^ ......... ib. 



Greek Tragedy has an alloy of trouble, but is still typical . xcvi 

The true greatness of Euripides ...... xcvii 

Fallacy involved in calling Euripides the most " human " of 

the Greek Dramatists ....... ib. 

Sophocles is the most human ...... xcviii 

Sophocles is the most perfect type of the Greek intellect . ib. 

The plastic character as manifested in Greek Oratory . . xcix 

A series of types is developed by a series of artists . . ib. 

In the individual oration, the main lines of the theme are 

unperplexed, and the unity is sealed by a final calm . ci 

Attic perorations in Cicero and in Erskine . . . . cii 

The personalities of ancient oratory . . . . . ib. 

Superiority of Greek to Roman Oratory .... ciii 

Brougham on Cicero ........ ib. 

Cicero's orations utterly unfit for the modern Senate or Bar ; 

whereas almost all the Greek orations could be adapted . civ 

Reasons of this superiority : 1. Greek Oratory is always 
to the point ; 2. The political inspirations of Greek 
Oratory are nobler, and the forensic motive is more 
genuine ......... 

Early History of Greek Oratory — two conditions for the possi- 
bility of any such history ...... 

Late appearance of Greek Oratory as an art — brilliancy of 
the pre-theoretic Oratory ...... 

Homeric estimate and illustrations of eloquence 

Modern character of the great Homeric speeches . 

Their historical significance ...... 

The Homeric eloquence is still aristocratic, not civil 

First conditions of civil eloquence (1) io-rjyopia, and (2) 
popular culture ........ 

The faculty of speech — its place in early Greek Democracy 

The intellectual turning-point — first conception of a literary 
prose ......... 

The political turning-point — opening of secure intercourse 

between the cities, and the new primacy of Athens . ex 

External. Jrrjlue4ices.-. which prepaje_d__Attic ^oratory — I. The 

Practical Culture of Ionia ...... ib. 








Protagoras ....... 

Prodieus ........ 

Hippias ........ 

Summary : Influence of the Ionian practical culture 

II. The Sicilian Rhetoric ..... 

Character of the Sicilian Greeks .... 

Political development of the Sicilian cities 

The Age of the Tyrants — the Democratic Revolution 

Character of Sicilian Democracy .... 

Circumstances under which Rhetoric became an art : 
Derangement of civil life by the Tyrants 

Claims thence arising ..... 

General features of such claims .... 

Best aids for such claimants, — 1. skill in marshalling facts. 
2. skill in arguing probabilities . 

Empedocles ....... 

Corax ........ 

The treatise of Qorax on Rhetoric — Arrangement, and the 
topic of etKos ...... 

Tisias and his Rhetoric ..... 

The topic of cikos further developed 

Real meaning of the lawsuit story 

Gorgias ........ 

His province neither Dialectic nor Rhetoric, but Oratory 

His first visit to Athens ..... 

to £evi(ov in his speaking ..... 

Its poetical character ...... 

Specimen from his Funeral Oration 

His great popularity at Athens — how it is to be under- 
stood ....... 

Pericles : was his oratory artistic in form ? . 

Statement of Plutarch ..... 

Thucydidean speeches of Pericles 

Notices of his oratory ..... 

Its distinctive conditions ..... 

Histoj^~ -j^ ^A^ begins with Antiphon — a 

disciple not of Gorgias but of the Sicilian Rhetoric 





























Rhetoric and Popular Dialectic at Athens from 450 B.C. — 

Tragedy ......... 

Forensic Advocacy . . . . . • . 

Athens the chief seat of Civil Oratory ..... 

Political morality of the Greeks — This morality most practical 

at Athens ......... 

Relation of Athenian to Greek Oratory .... 

Political aspect of Athenian Oratory ..... 

Political training of the Greek citizen, and especially of the 

Athenian ......... 

Civic sentiment in the Greek and in the Italian Republics — 

Athens and Florence ....... 

Civil Oratory defined — Attic Oratory fulfils this definition 










Birth of Antiphon .... 


Antiphon the first Aoyoyyoa</>os 


Antiphon and Thncydides . 


Antiphon's life to 411 B.C. . 


The Revolution . . . . . 


The two parties in the Council 


Fall of the Four Hundred . 


Trial and Condemnation of Antiphon . 


Character of Antiphon's political life 


Character of his ability 


His dperrj ...... 


The new power of Rhetoric . 




Antiphon the most antique of the orators 

The beginnings of Greek Prose 

Character of the early Prose .... 



Dionysins on the " austere " style . 

Antiphon's style — its dignity 

Reliance on single words 

Antiphon is imaginative, but not florid . 

Pathos and ethos in Antiphon 

The style of Antiphon — how far periodic 

Antiphon's treatment of subject-matter . 

Religious feeling of Antiphon 

His Aeschylean tone .... 

Relation of Antiphon to the elder democracy 

pa <.;]•: 





The (froviKol Xoyoi alone extant 

The Tetralogies .... 

First Tetralogy .... 

Second Tetralogy 

Third Tetralogy .... 

Speech on the Murder of 

Speech on the Choreutes 

Speech Against a Stepmother 

Lost Works : Authorship of the treatises 

Concord, On Statesmanship . 
The Rhetoric — the Proems and Epilogues 

On Truth 






Birth of Andocides . 

Affair of the Hermae .... 

Decree of Isotimides .... 

The Speech On the Mysteries 

Life of Andocides from 415 to 402 B.C. 

Life after 402 

Character of Andocides 







Andocides not an artist ..... 

Comparative neglect of him by the ancient critics . 
General tendency of ancient criticism upon oratory- 

to Andocides ...... 

Four epithets given to his style in the Plutarchic Life 

The diction of Andocides is " plain" (ac^cA^s) 

And " sparing of figures " (do-^/xaTicrro?) 

His method is "simple" (cbrAoiV) and "inartificial" 

crKevos) ....... 

Andocides has little skill in commonplaces of argument 
His strength is in narrative .... 

His references to the early history of Attica . 
Love of Andocides for gossip .... 

His proneness to low comedy .... 

Summary ........ 










Speech On his Return .... 

Speech On the Mysteries 

Historical matter in the Speech 

Its arrangement and style 

Speech On the Peace with the Lacedaemonian 

Question of authenticity 

Historical difficulties .... 

Passage common to Andocides and Aeschines 

Speech Against Alcibiades . 

Not by Andocides .... 

Was Phaeax the author ? . . . 

Ostracism misconceived 

Particular errors in the speech 

Lost works of Andocides 

Doubtful Fragments .... 







Birth, of Lysias — doubt about the date 

Lysias at Thurii 

His life at Athens from 412 to 405 B.C. 

The Anarchy .... 

Lysias aids the Exiles . 

His professional life 

The impeachment of Eratosthenes 

Lysias and Socrates 

Lysias at Olympia 

Chronological limit of his known work 

Character of Lysias 














It is easier for us to appreciate Lysias as a writer than as 

an orator ; reason of this 
Lysias the representative of the Plain Style . 
Its general characteristics .... 
Originality of Lysias ..... 
Had his style been florid before it became plain ? 
His Composition ..... 

His diction — its purity ... 

simplicity ...... 

clearness ...... 

conciseness, vividness .... 

His ethopoiia ...... 

The " propriety " of Lysias. His " charm " . 
His treatment of subject-matter 
Invention. Arrangement . 
Proem .... 

Narrative. Proof 

Epilogue .... 



The tact of Lysias .... 
His humour ..... 
His sarcasm. — Defects of Lysias as an orator 
The limits of pathos in Lysias 
His eloquence rarely passionate 
Exceptions ..... 

Place of Lysias in the history of Rhetoric 
The ancient critics upon Lysias 
Lysias and his successors 
His services to the prose idiom 







Proportion of extant to lost works 

Condition of the extant speeches . 

Arrangement in the mss. 

Oratory at the Panhellenic festivals 

The Olympiacus .... 

Compared with the Panegyricus . 

The Epitaphius .... 

Its character and authorship 

Oration xxxiv., a Plea for the Constitution 





Principle of distinction between " public " and " private ;; law- 
speeches ......... 

I. Causes relating to offences directly against the State : 

1. Oration xx., For Poly stratus .... 

2. Oration xxl, Defence on a Charge of taking Bribes . 




3. Oration xxviii., Against Ergocles .... 

4. Oration xxvil, Against Epicrates .... 

5. Oration xxx., Against Nicomachus 

6. Oration xxn., Against the Corndealers . 

II. Indictment for proposing an Unconstitutional Measure 

(ypa^rj TrapavofjLaiv) — Oration xviii., On the Property of 
the Brother of Nicias ....... 

III. Claims for Moneys withheld from the State (airoypa^al) : 

1. Oration ix., For the Soldier . 
The speech spurious 

2. Oration xix. ? On the property of Aristophanes 

3. Oration xxix., Against Philocrates 

IV. Causes relating to a Scrutiny (SoKcpacrta) 
Senate ; especially of Officials-designate : 

1. Oration xxiv., Against Evandrus . 

2. Oration xvl, For Mantitheus 

3. Oration xxxi., Against Pliilon 

4. Oration xxv. (So-called) Defence on a 

seeking to abolish the Democracy 

5. Oration xxiv., For the Invalid 

V. Causes relating to Military Offences (XcrroTa^iov — acrrpa- 

retas) : 1. Oration xiv., Against Alcibiades, on a Charge 
of Desertion ; 2. Oration XV., Against Alcibiades, on a 
Charge of Failure to Serve ...... 

VI. Causes relating to Murder or Intent to Murder (ypacfral 
<fcovov — rpavpaTos ck 7rpovoia$) : 1. Oration XII., 
Against Eratosthenes ..... 

2. Oration xiii., Against Agoratus 

3. Oration i., On the Death of Eratosthenes 

4. Oration in., Defence against Simon 

5. Oration iv., On Wounding with Intent . 

VII. Causes relating to Impiety (ypacjxu acre/Seta?, Upocrv 
Xtas, k.t.X.) : 1. Oration vi., Against Andocides . 

The speech not by Lysias .... 

2. Oration v., For Callias .... 

3. Oration vn., On the Sacred Olive . 




. 227 

. 230 



. 235 



. 237 

. 240 

. 243 



. 245 

. 249 











I. Action for Defamation (0Y/07 KaKqyoptas) : Oration x., 

Against Theomnestus . . . . . . .289 

II. Action by a Ward against a Guardian (Blkyj kiriTpoir-qs) : 

Oration xxxn., Against Diogeiton . . . .293 

III. Trial of a Claim to Property (SiaSiKao-ta) : Oration xvil, 

On the Property of Eraton . . . . . .296 

IV. Answer to a Special Plea (irpos 7rapaypa<$>'i)v) : Oration 
xxiil, Against Pancleon . . . . . .298 

Miscellaneous Writings : 1. Oration viii., To his Companions. 

—Not by Lysias 300 

2. The Eroticus in Plato's Phaedrus . . . .301 

Preparation for a verbally exact recital . . .302 

Character of the Criticism on the Speech . . . 303 

The epiortKos is really by Lysias .... 305 

Fragments ......... 306 

1. Against Cinesias . . . . . . .307 

2. Against Tisis. 3. For Pherenicus . . .308 

4. Against the Sons of Hippocrates .... 309 

5. Against Archebiades ...... ib. 

6. Against Aeschines . . . . . .310 

Letters 311 



Olympiads and 


72. Diognetus 

2. Hybrilides 

3. Phaenippus 

4. Aristides 

73. Anchises 





3. [ 486 

4. Philocrates j 485 


74. Leostratus I 484 

2. Xicodemus 


4. Themistocles 
75. Calliades 

2. Xantliippus 



Pindar llvd. 7 and (?) 12. 
Aeschylus lights at Mara- 

Pheidias born ? 
Simonides of 

Pindar Uvd. 3. 

Ceos flou- 

Gorgias, Protagoras and 
Tisias born about this 

Pindar 'OXvfJLir. 10 and 11. 

Epicharmus writes Comedy 
at Syracuse. 

Aeschylus begins to be emi- 
nent in Tragedy. 

Herodotus born. 

Antiphon born. 

Pindar 'lad p. 7. 

Euripides born. (Aeschy- 
lus was now 45, and 
Sophocles 15.) 

Fleet of Mardonius destroyed off 

Persian heralds sent by Dareius 

to demand earth and water 

from the Greek cities. 
Persians, under Artaphernes 

and Datis, invade Greece : 

Hippias lands with them at 

Marathon. Athenian victory. 
Expedition of Miltiades to Pa- 

ros : his disgrace and death. 

Death of Dareius : Xerxes king 
of Persia. 

Gelon becomes tyrant of Syra- 

Aristeides ostracised. 

Amnesty at Athens before Sa- 
lamis 1. 123. Second Persian 
invasion. Xerxes crosses Hel- 
lespont. Battles of Thermo- 
pylae, Artemisium and Sala- 

Athenians reject the offers of 
Mardonius : he occupies A- 
thens. Battles of Plataea 
and Mycale. Athenian apxh 
founded. Athens rebuilt and 
Peiraeus fortified : Walls of 


Olympiads and 

3. Timosthe- i 478 

4. Adeimantus | 477 

History of Herodotus ends 
at siege of Sestus (spring). 

76. Phaedon 

2. Drornoclei- 


3. Acestorides 

4. Menon 
77. Chares 

2. Praxiergus 

3. Demotion 

4. Apsephion 
78. Theagenides 

2. Lysistratus 

3. Lysanias 

4. Lysitheus 

79. Archidemi- 

2. Tlepolemus 

3. Conon 

4. Evippus 









Phrynichus tragicus victor 
with $olvL<r<rai. 

Pindar 'OXv/nr. 1 and 12. 
Death of Pythagoras act. 

Aeschylus Uepcrac. 
Thucydides born. 

Pindar 'OXv/wr. 6. 
Sophocles gains his first 

tragic victory, aet. 28. 
Socrates born. 

Corax begins to teach 
Rhetoric at Syracuse : 
1. cxviii. — Pindar HvO. 4 
and 5. 

Bacchylides flor. 

Pindar 'OXvfnr. 7 and 13. 

Hieron succeeds Gelon as tyrant 
of Syracuse : Corax flourishes 
in his reign (cf. 466 b. c. ). Pau- 
sanias recalled from Byzan- 
tium to Sparta. 

Formation of Delian Confedera- 
cy under headship of Athens : 
tribute assessed on members 
by Aristeides. Treason of 
Pausanias. — Cleisthenean con- 
stitution begins to be developed 
through the vclvtikos oxXos : 
Fourth Class made eligible 
for archonship : boards for 
internal administration multi- 
plied (ayopdvofJLOi, aarvvofioi, 

Athenians take Eion, reconquer 
Lemnos, reduce Scyros and 

Thrasydaeus, tyrant of Agrigen- 
tum, expelled : Empedocles 
opposes the restoration of the 
tyranny, 1. cxviii. 

Death of Aristeides. 

Thrasybulus succeeds Hieron 
as tyrant of Syracuse. 

Thrasybulus expelled from Sy- 
racuse : Gelonian dynasty 
overthrown and a democracy 
established. Naxos revolts 
from Athens and is subju- 

Athenian colonists destroyed 
by Thracians near Ennea 
Hodoi : n. 189. 

Thasos revolts from Athens : is 
reduced 463 e.g. 

Death of Xerxes : Artaxerxes I. 
(Ma/cpoxetp) king ( — 425 B.C.) 

Helots rise against Spartans 
( — 455 B.C.): quarrel between 
Athens and Sparta : alli- 
ance between Athens and Ar- 

Megara joins Athenian alliance : 
Long Walls of Megara built. 


Olympiads and 


80. Phrasiclei- 

2. Philocles 

3. Bion 

4. Mnesithei- 


81. Callias 





2. Sosistratus 

3. Ariston 

4. Lysicrates 

82. Chaerepha- 


2. Antidotus 

3. Euthyde- 


4. Pedieus 







Parmenides visits Athens. 

Zenon of Elea ("inventor 
of Dialectic," Arist.) flor. 

Hippocrates the physician 

Democritus born. 

Calamis, sculptor, flor. 

Polygnotus, painter, flor. 

Lysias born, ace. to [Plut.] 
and Dionys. (cf. 444 B.C.) 
1. 141. — Thrasymachus 
of Chalcedon born ? 

Aeschylus 'Opeareia. 

Pindar '0\iy-c7r. 9. 

Death of Aeschylus act. 69. 

First tragedy, UeXtddes, of 
Euripides, act. -36. 

Pindar 'OXu/x7r. 4 and 5. 

Ion of Chios, tragic poet, 
begins to exhibit. 

Crates comicus. 

Anaxagoras act. 50 with- 
draws from Athens : he 
had taught Pericles and 

Cephalus, father ol Lysias, in- 
vited to settle at Athens by 
Pericles? 1. 140. 

Revolt of Egypt from Persia 
(—455 B.C.) 

Reforms of Ephialtes 11. 209. 

Cimon ostracised '[ 

Long Walls of Athens begun. 
Embitterment of the conserva- 
tive party : murder of Ephi- 
altes. — Athenians defeated at 
Tanagra by Lacedaemonians 
and allies. — Athenians de- 
feat Boeotians at Oenophyta, 
Athenian empire at its greatest 

Cimon recalled from exile. Com- 
pletion of two Long Walls, 
viz. (1) that from Athens 
to Phaleron, to <&a\7]piKov 
reixos, and (2) that from 
Athens to the Peiraeus, 
afterwards known as to 
Bopetov telxos. A third wall, 
between these two (to dca 
fieaov, or to votlov), was built 
some years later. 

Destruction of Athenian arma- 
ment sent to help Inaros 
11. 188. Persians reduce all 
Egypt except the fens held 
by Amyrtaeus. — Ithome sur- 
renders to Sparta (cf. 464 
B.C.) : Tolmides, UTpaT^yos, 
settles expelled Helots at 
Naupactus. — Athens conquers 

Death of Alexander I. (<£i\e\- 
\ V v) of Macedon (498 B.C.—) : 
accession of Perdiccas. 

Five Years' Truce between 
Athens and Sparta 1. 129. 
Athens sends 60 ships to 
help Amyrtaeus in Egypt. 

Siege of Citium in Cyprus by 
Cimon : cf. 11. 188. His 
death. Athenian victory at 


Olympiads and 

83. Philiscus 
2. Timarchides 

3. Callimachus 

4. Lysimachi 


84. Praxiteles 

2. Lysanias 

3. Diphilus 

4. Timocles 
85. Myrochides 








2. Glaucines 

3. Theodoras 

4. Euthymenes 
86. Lvsimachus 



Cratinus comicus flor. 

Ictinus and Callicrates, ar- 
chitects, flor. 

Date for birth of Lysias 
placed between this year 
and 436 by C. F. Her- 
mann and Blass, 1. 142 
(cf. 459 B.C.). 

Pheidias aet. 44 has super- 
intendence of the public 
art-works of Athens. 

Death of Pindar aet. 79. 

Herod, aet. 43 goes to 
Thurii : Lysias either 
now or later. 

Euripides aet. 49 gains, for 
the first time, the first 
prize in tragedy. 

Andocides born, 1. 70. 
Decree to put down Comedy 

{•<prj(pi(j [in rod /jltj /cw/xy- 

Sophocles 'ApTiyovrj (in the 

year of his (rrpanqyla). 

Parthenon completed and 
dedicated : Pheidias act. 
50. — Euripides "AXktj- 


Pheidias goes to Elis. 

Decree against Comedy re- 

Isocrates born, u. 2. 

The Zeus at Olympia com- 
pleted by Pheidias. 

the Cyprian Salamis. Alleged 
treaty (" of Callias ") between 
Athens and Persia, 11. 156. 
Alcibiades born ? 

Death of Themistocles. — Athe- 
nians under Tolmides defeat- 
ed by Boeotians at Coroneia. 
Athenians evacuate Boeotia : 
their apxo begins to break 

Euboea and Megara revolt from 
Athens. Lacedaemonians un- 
der Pleistoanax invade Attica. 
Thirty Years' Truce between 
Athens and Sparta : Andoci- 
des, grandfather of the orator, 
an envoy, 1. 130. 

Foundation of Thurii (1. 141), 

by Athenian colonists, on the 

site of Sybaris. 
Thucydides, son of Melesias, 

ostracised : aristocratic party 

broken up. 

Revolt of Sam os from Athens : 
Andocides avus and Sopho- 
cles command with Pericles 
against Samos, 1. 71. Samos 
surrenders in 9th month. 
Appeal of Samians to Lace- 
daemonians : congress at 
Sparta : Corinthians insist 
on the principle of non-inter- 
ference with an autonomous 

The people of Epidamnus apply 
to their metropolis Corcyra : 


Olympiads and 

2. Antilochides 

3. Chares 

4. Apseudes 

87. Pythodorus 




2. Euthyde- 


4. Epameinon 

88. Diotimus 

2. Eucleides 







Propylaea of Athens be- 

Pliryniclius comicus begins 
to write. 

Pheidias and Aspasia pro- 
secuted. d(rej3et'as : Phei- 
dias dies in prison — 
Anaxagoras also prose- 
cuted : he withdraws to 

Pericles speaks the eVtrd- 
(pios of those who had 
fallen in the first year of 
the war. 

Euripides M-fideia. 

Xenophon born. 

Polycleitus, sculptor, flor. 

Damon, musician, flor. 11. 

Plato born (May). — Death 

of Pericles (autumn). 
Eupolis writes Comedy. 

Gorgias visits Athens as 
chief envoy of Leontini, 1. 
cxxiii. Tisias accompanies 
him, ace. to Pans. Aristo- 
phanes begins to satirise 
the New Culture in his 
AairaXeis — a contrast be- 
tween the old school and 
the new. 

426 J Aristophanes Ba(3v\ibvioi- 

help is refused, and they 
apply to Corinth. 
Corinthian army admitted into 
Epidamnus : sea - fight be- 
tween Corinthians and Cor- 
cyraeans : Epidamnus capitu- 
lates to Corcyraeans. 

Embassies to Athens from 
Corcyra and from Corinth : 
Athens makes a defensive 
alliance with Corcyra : 10 
Athenian ships sent to Cor- 
cyra under Lacedaemonius 
son of Cimon. 

Corcyraeans, supported by Athe- 
nians, defeated in a sea-fight 
by Corinthians (spring). — 
Athenians blockade Pydna 
and Potidaea. — Congress at 
Sparta (autumn) : a large 
majority of the allies vote for 
war with Athens. 

Peloponnesian demands reject- 
ed by Athens. — Beginning of 
Peloponnesian War. — Theban 
attempt on Plataea. — First 
invasion of Attica under 
Archidamus. — Brasidas, now 
first heard of, rescues Methone 
from Athenians. 

Year 2 of War. — Second inva- 
sion of Attica. — Plague at 
Athens. — Pericles unpopular : 
he is fined, but re-elected 

Year 3 of War. — Potidaea sur- 
renders on conditions (cf. 
332 B.C.) — Phormion, com- 
manding Athenian fleet, gains 
two victories in Corinthian 

Year 4 of War. — Lesbos, ex- 
cept Methymna, revolts : 
Athenians besiege Mytilene. 
— Third invasion of Attica, 
led by Cleomenes. 

Year 5 of War. — Plataea de- 
stroyed by Sparta, it. 175. — 
Fourth invasion of Attica, 
led by Cleomenes. — Mytilene 
taken by Athenians, 1. 55 : 
massacre proposed by Cleon 
and averted by Diodotus. — 
Strife at Corcyra between 
oligarchs and demos (sum- 
mer). Athens sends help to 

Year 6 of War. — Athenians 



Olympiads and 

4. Stratocles 

89. Isarchus 

2. Ameinias 

3. Alcaeus 

4. Aristion 

90. Astyphilus 

a plea for the allies 
I against Cleon, etc. 


425 J Aristophanes 'Axapvels. 
I Zeuxis, painter, flor. 

424 j Aristophanes 'l7T7rets. 





Thucydides, the historian, 
is banished, or withdraws 
from Athens, in conse- 
quence of his failure to 
save Amphipolis (Janu- 
ary?). Returns to Athens 
in" 403. 

Aristophanes Ne^eXcu (1st 

Aristophanes 20?)/ces. 

Eupolis in his K6\clk€s 
brings in Protagoras as 
then living at Athens. 

Isaeus born 11. 264. 
Plato comicus flor. 

purify Delos and restore the 
Panionic festival, to be held 
there every 4 years. 

Year 7 of War. — Corcyraean 
demos, helped by Eurymedon 
and Athenians, storm Istone : 
massacre of oligarchs. — Fifth 
invasion of Attica led by Agis 
II. — Demosthenes occupies 
Pylos. Spartan hoplites block- 
aded in Sphacteria : Cleon 
takes the island, and brings 
Spartan prisoners to Athens. 
— Death of Artaxerxes I. (465 
r,.c. — See next year.) 

Year 8 of War.- Defeat of 
Athenians by Thebans at 
Delium. — Brasidas in Thrace : 
he gains Acanthus, Amphi- 
polis, Stageirus, Torone. — 
Congress of Sicilian Greeks 
at Gela : Hermocrates de- 
nounces Athenian aggression. 
Accession of Dareius II. 
(2s 660s — 405 B.C.) after a con- 

of Wi 

-Brasidas in 

Thrace : Scione and Mende 
revolt from Athens. — Truce 
for a year. 

Year 10 of War. — Torone re- 
covered by Cleon. Battle of 
Amphipolis : Cleon and Brasi- 
das killed. — Number of Athe- 
nian males above the age of 
20 was at this time about 
20,000 : total civic popula- 
tion (excluding /aeroiKOL and 
slaves) about 82,000: average 
attendance in Ecclesia, about 

Year 11 of War. — Peace " of 
Nicias," for 50 years, nomi- 
nally valid down to 414, but 
not accepted by Boeotians, 
Corinthians or Megarians. 

Year 12 of War. — Separate 
treaty of Sparta with (1) 
Boeotians, (2) Argives. — Alci- 
biades contrives to alienate 
the Argives from Sparta : de- 
fensive alliance between 
Athens, Argos. Elis and 



Olympiads and 

2. Arcliias \ 419 

3. Antiplion 418 

4. Eupliemus j 417 | Antiplion or. 5 irepl rod 
J 'HpdbSov cpovov, I. 58. 

91. Arimnestus | 416 i Agathon tragicus flor. 

2. Chabrias 


3. Peisander 

4. Cleocritus 



Andocides banished, under 
the decree of Isotimides, 
1. 74. 

Fictitious date of [Andoc] 
or. 4 Kara 'A\/a/3iddou, 
1. 131. 

Socrates flor., act. 53 : 
Plato is now 14 : Alci- 
biades circ. 34, Xenophon 
circ. 16. — Euripides Tpw- 

Aristophanes "Opvides. 

Year 13 of War. — Alcibiades 
crTparrjyos : he makes a pro- 
gress through Achaia. — Inva- 
sion of Epidaurus by Argives. 

Year 14 of War. — Spartans in- 
vade Argos. Argives, with 
Alcibiades, attack Orchome- 
11 us : Spartans come to the 
defence of Tegea. Battle of 
Mantineia (cf. 362 B.C.) : Com- 
plete victory of Spartans over 
Argives and Athenians. Oli- 
garchical conspiracy of the 
Thousand at Argos. 

Year 15 of War. — Rising of Ar- 
give demos against oligarchs. 
— Athenian expedition to get 
back Amphipolis : Perdiccas 
of Macedon breaks faith, and 
the plan fails. — Ostracism of 
Hyperbolas, 1. 131 — the tenth, 
and last, recorded exercise of 
ostracism since its institution 
by Cleisthenes about 509 B.C. 
(Cf. 1. 134.) 

Year 16 of War. — Athenians 
take Melos, it. 154. 

Victories of Alcibiades at Olym- 
pia ? 11. 228. — Embassy to 
Athens from Egesta, asking- 
help against Selinus. Athe- 
nian envoys sent to Egesta. 

Year 17 of War. — Envoys return 
from Egesta : Sicilian Expe- 
dition voted. — Mutilation of 
the Hermae, just as fleet is 
going to sail for Sicily (May), 
1. 71 — (Athenian ambitions 
in 415 : 11. 187.) — Alci- 
biades accused of profaning 
Mysteries. — Expedition sails 
for Sicily under Nicias, Lama- 
chus and Alcibiades. — Ex- 
citement caused at Athens by 
disclosures of Diocleides and 
Andocides. Alcibiades con- 
demned to death in his ab- 
sence. Nicias misses his 
chance of investing Syracuse. 

Year 18 of War. — Second cam- 
r paign in Sicily. Lamachus 
killed. Gylippus enters Syra- 
cuse. Nicias writes to Athens 
for help. 

Year 19 0/ War. — Deceleia in 
Attica fortified by Lacedae- 
monians, it. 188, who ravage 
Attica. Formal end to the 
truce of 421. Beginning of 



Olympiads and 

92. Callias 


| Antiphon or. 6 irepl rod 
Xopevrov ? i. 61. — Lysias 
and his brother Polem- 
archus, driven from 

I Thurii, come to Athens. 

j — Euripides 'EXevrj, 'Av- 

\ Spo/neSa. Callimachus, 

: sculptor, flor. 

2. Theopom- 



aucippus [ 410 

4. Diodes 

93. Euctemon 


First return of Andocides 
to Athens, 1. 78. Anti- 
phon dies, 1. 13. Xeno- 
phon begins his "EWr/vcKa 
with the manoeuvres at 
the Hellespont just after 
the battle of Cynossema : 
ef. 362 B.C. 
Aristophanes Avatar parr), 

Second return of Andoci- 
des to Athens : or. 2. 
irepl rrjs eavrov kcl668ov, I. 
107. — Dramatic date of 
I Plato <£cu<5/)os? 11. 3. — 
1 History of Thucydides 
j breaks off after the battle 
! of Cvzicus. 

Sophocles $i\oKTif)T7}s, 

408 j Euripides 'Opearr/s. Aris- 
| tophanes UXovros (1st 
! edit.: cf. 388 B.C.) 

the second chapter of the 
War, called the AeKeXetKos or 
'Wplos 7r6\efM)s ( — 404 B.C.) — 
Third caiivpaigii in Sicily. 
Sea-fight at Syracuse : Athe- 
nian fleet destroyed. Death of 
Nicias and of Demosthenes. 

Death of Perdiccas, King of 
Macedon (454 B.C. — ) ; acces- 
sion of Archelaus ( — 399 B.C.) 

Year 20 of War. — Revolt of 
Lesbos from Athens, 1. 58. 
Revolt of Euboea, 11. 265. 
Revolt of Chios, 11. 158. Pe- 
daritus commands there for 
Sparta, 11. 198. Revolt of 
Miletus. Oropus seized by 
Boeotians, 11. 178. Athe- 
nians lose a sea - fight off 
Cnidus, 11. 351. — Samian 
demos, true to Athens, rises 
against the oligarchs. Athe- 
nian fleet musters at Samos : 
Spartan Astyochus defeats 
Charminus. Alcibiades takes 
refuge from Spartans with 
Tissaphernes : his overtures 
to the Athenian leaders. 

Year 21 of War. — Government 
of the Four Hundred, 1. 7 : 
(March — June.) — Erato- 
sthenes (Lys. or. 12) active at 
the Hellespont for the oli- 
garchs : 1. 261. — Athenian 
victory at Cynossema. — Eva- 
goras begins to reign ? 11. 106. 

Year 22 of War. — Thrasyllns 
commands on coast of Asia 
Minor, 1. 294. — Second form 
of the Trierarchy brought 
in — avvrpt-qpapxta : cf. 357. 
340 B.C. — Athenians attack 
and recover Cyzicus : death 
of Spartan admiral Minda- 
rus. — ■ Cleophon orjpayojyos : 
Athens rejects Spartan oilers 
of peace. 

Year 23 of War. — Athenian 
campaign under Thrasyllns 
in Lydia. — Messenians in 
Pylus surrender to Sparta -- - 
Megara recovers Nisaea. 

Year 24 of War.—AlcDnadr* 
recovers Selymbria and By- 
zantium for Athens. — Troops 
under Thrasvlhis defeated ni 
Ephesus, 1. 294. 



Olympiads and 

2. Antigenes 


4. Alexias 

94. Pythodorus 

2. Eucleicles 

^. Micon 







Lysias or. 20 t'Trep IIoAu- 

(TTpdiTOV ? I. 211. 

Death of Euripides. 

Death of Sophocles. 
Aristophanes Barpaxoi. 
Dramatic date of Plato 

Polemarclms, brother of 
Lysias, put to death by 
the Thirty (May) ; Lysias 
escapes to Megara, 1. 148 : 
cf. 263. — Isocrates leaves 
Athens for Chios. 11. 6. 

Proposal to give Lysias the 
citizenship defeated by 
Archinus, 1. 149. Lysias 
or. 12 Kara 'Eparoirde- 
vovs, 1. 256. — Lysias or. 
34 irepl rod /ultj KaraXvaaL 
tt]v iro\iTeiav, I. 206. 

Isocrates returns to Athens, 
11. 6. Isocrates or. 21 
irpos 'Eudvvow, II. 221. 

Third and final return of 
Andocides to Athens. 

Year 25 of War. — Alcibiades 
returns to Athens, is chosen 
arparrjyos and leads the pro- 
cession to Eleusis. — Antio- 
chus, the pilot of Alcibiades, 
defeated by Lysander off 
Notion. Alcibiades plunders 
Cyme. He is deposed from 
his (TTpaT-qyia : ten new Gene- 
rals are chosen. 

Year 26 of War. — Dionysius I. 
becomes tyrant of Syracuse, 
11. 170. — Callicratidas (suc- 
cessor of Lysander) storms 
Methymna and blockades 
Conon in Mytilene. Com- 
plete victory of Athenians at 
Arginusae : death of Calli- 
cratidas. — Theramenes accuses 
the Generals : six are put to 
death, Socrates protesting. 

Year 27 of War. — Battle of 
Aegospotami (late autumn). 
The Areiopagus takes measures 
for public safety, 11. 212. 
Conon escapes to Evagoras. 
Death of Darieus II. (424 
B.C. — ) : Artaxerxes II. (Mvrj- 
fiwv — 359 B.C.) succeeds him. 

Theramenes brings the terms of 
peace from Sparta. Agoratus 
informs, 1. 265. Athens sur- 
renders to Lysander. Critias 
and Eratosthenes are among 
the five ecpopoi, and then among 
the Thirty, 1. 261. Tyranny 
of the Thirty begins (April). 
Thrasybulus advances from 
Phyle to Peiraeus. The 
Thirty deposed in 8th month 
(Dec). Theramenes put to 
death in autumn, 11. 6. — 
Death of Alcibiades act. cire. 

Thrasybulus and the exiles in the 
Peiraeus are at war with the 
Ten ; but are in possession 
of Athens before the end of 
July. — Democracy formally 
restored in September. — Law 
of Aristophon, 11. 329. — 
Knights who had served under 
the Thirty are required to re- 
fund their KaTaaraacs, I. 242. 
— Expedition from Athens to 
Eleusis, to dislodge the Thirty, 
1. 247. 



Olympiads and 

4. Xenaentus 

95. Laches 

2. Aristocrates 




3. Itliycles 

4. Suniades 

96. Phormion 

2. Diophantus 

3. Eubulides 





Lysias or. 21 SupoooKias 

airoXoyia, I. 214. 
Lysias or. 24 virep rod 

advvarov 1 1. 249. 
Isocrates or. 18 Tpbs KaX- 

\ljllclxov, 11. 233. 
Lysias or. 25 8rj/xov kcltci- 

Xvcrecos airoXoyia, I. 245. 
Sophocles Oidiirovs eirl Ko- 

Xcovcp : brought out by 

Sophocles nepos. 

Parrhasius, painter, flor. 

Andocides or. 1 irepl rCov 
/bLvcrTTjpicov, 1. 112. — Death 
of Socrates, 1. 150. — 
Lysias or. 30 Kara aSiko- 
fidxov, 1. 218. — [Lys.] or. 
6 Kara 'AvSokiSov, I. 277. 
— Plato withdraws to 
Megara. — Lys. or. 13 
Kara 'Ayopdrov, I. 265. 

Ctesias brought his UepcriKd 

to this year. 
Lysias or. 17 7rept $rujLo<jiuv 

Xpin^drtcv [better irepl 

tlov 'JUpdrtovos xp^arow], 

I. 296. 
Isocrates or. 17 irepl rod 

frtyovs, II. 228. 

Lysias or. 18 irepl d-q Revere cos 
tCov tov yuKiov ddeXcpov, I. 

Plato act. 34 returns to 
Athens. His Topylas 
written between this year 
and 389. 

Lysias or. 7 irepl rod <tt)kov ? 
1. 284. 

[Lysias] or. 9 virep rod 

(TTpCLTLUTOV, I. 227. 

Isocrates or. 20 Kara Aoxt- 
tov, ii. 215. —(or 393) 
or. 19 AlyivTjTiKos, II. 
218: or. 17 TpairefrrtKos, 
it. 223. 

Expedition of Cyrus the younger, 
n.159,171. Battle of Cynaxa 
and death of Cyrus (autumn). 
— Retreat of the Greeks : they 
reach Armenia in the winter. 
— War between Lacedaemon 
and Elis. 

Campaign of Thimbron in Asia 
Minor, n. 159. 

The Greeks in their retreat 
reach Cotyora on the Euxine 
eight months after battle of 

Proceedings before the Areiopa- 
gus against men formerly of 
the XXX., i. 292. 

Dercyllidas supersedes Thim- 
bron in Asia Minor, n. 159. 
— Death of Archelaus of Mace- 
don (413 B.C. — ) ; his son 
Orestes succeeds, but is dis- 
possessed (396 B.C.) by his 
guardian Aeropus. See 394. 

Second campaign of Dercyllidas 
in Asia Minor. 

Third campaign of Dercyllidas 
in Asia Minor : he is about 
to invade Caria when he 
meets the satraps and makes 
an armistice with Tissapher- 

Beginning of 6 irepl "Podov iroXe- 
juos between Persia and Sparta 
(—394 B.C.), ii. 159. First 
campaign of Agesilaus in Asia 
Minor, n. 160. 

Athenian expedition to relieve 
Haliartus, i. 242. Alcibiades 
the younger takes part, I. 253. 
and Ly sander is killed. — 
Second campaign of Agesilaus. 

Beginning of Corinthian War 
(—390 B.C.), ii. 159. Naval 
campaigns of Conon (Lys. or. 
19), i. 230.— Battle of Corinth. 
Agesilaus in Boeotia (autumn), 
i/242. Battle of Cnidus, ii. 
159. — Dionysius I. hard 
pressed by Carthaginians, ii. 



Olympiads and 

4. Demostratus | 393 

97. Philocles 


3. Demostra- 


4. Antipater 

98. Pyrrliion 

2. Theodotus 

3. Mysticliides 

4. Dexitheus 








Lysias or. 3 /card 'Lifiwvos, 
I. 272. 

Polycrates Karriyopict 2w- 
Kp&rovs, II. 90. 

( — 391) Isaeus the pupil of 
Isocrates, 11. 266. 

Lysias or. 16 i'7rep ~Mcu>tl- 
9eov ? 1. 240. 

Isocrates begins to teach. 
First period of his School, 
392-378 B.C. : 11. 9.— 
Aristophanes 'E/c/cX??(rid- 

( — 390 B.C.) Isocrates or. 
11 BovcrLpis, II. 91 : or. 
13 /card aocpLarQv, II. 124. 

Andocides or. 1 irepl rrjs 
irpbs AaKedcufJLovLovs elprjvyjs 
(spring), 1. 125. — Isocra- 
tes visits Gorgias in Thes- 
saly, 11. 5. 

Isaeus or. 5 irepl rod At- 
KdLoyevovs Kkripov. II. 349. 

Scopas, sculptor, and Theo- 
pompus, last })oet of Old 
Comedy, nor. 

Lysias or. 28 /card 'Epyo- 
/cXeous, I. 215. 

Lysias or. 27 /card 'E7ri- 
Kparovs ? I. 217. 

Lysias or. 29 /card ^tAo/cpd- 
tovs, 1. 235. 

Aeschines born. Plato act. 
40 first visits Sicily. His 
IloXireta was begun be- 
fore this year. 

Lysias or. 33 'OXvjuirtaKos, 
1. 199. 

Aristophanes IlXouros — se- 
cond (the extant) edition, 
marking the transition to 
Middle Comedy; cf. 408 


Polycrates eminent as a 
teacher of Rhetoric, 11. 91. 

Lysias or. 19 irepl tCqv 'Apia- 
ro(pdvovs xpv/ JL< ^ r0JJ/ ,) J - 230. 

Lysias or. 22 /card t&v <jlto- 

irwXuv ? 1. 221. 
Plato act. 43 begins to teach 

in the Academy ? 

198.— Amyntas II. of Mace- 
don begins to reign, 11. 156. 

Long Walls of Athens restored 
by Conon, 1. 82. 

Lechaeum, western port of 
Corinth, taken by Lacedae- 
monians, 11. 352. 

Plenipotentiaries sent by Athens 
to treat for peace at Sparta, 1. 
82 (winter 391-390). 

Thrasybulus the Steirian re- 
ceives Amadocus I. and 
Seuthes into the alliance of 
Athens, 11. 166 : descends the 
coast of Asia Minor, 11. 346. 

Death of Thrasybulus the Stei- 
rian, 1. 241. Athenian ex- 
pedition to aid Evagoras, 1. 
231. — Conquests of Dionysius 
I. in Sicily and Magna Grae- 
cia, 11. 161 (389-387 B.C.). 

388-387 B.C., Diotimus com- 
mands in Hellespont, 1. 232. 

Dionysius I. of Syracuse sends 
an embassy to Olvinpia : 1. 

Eight triremes under Thrasybu- 
lus the Collytean taken by An- 
talcidas, near Abydus, 1. 238. 
— Peace of Antalcidas, 11. 149. 

Plataea rebuilt by Sparta as a 
stronghold against Thebes, 11. 

Mantineia destroyed by Lace- 
daemonians, 11. 150. — Begin- 
ning of w T ar between Evagoras 
and Artaxerxes II.. 11. 157. 



Olympiads and 

99. Diotrephes I 384 

2. Phanostra- 

3. Evandrus 

4. Demophilus 

100. Pytheas 
2. Nicon 
2. Nausinicus 

I ( — 383 B.C.) Lys. or. 10 Kara 
! BeojULvrjCTTOv, 1. 289. 
i Demosthenes born (Selva- 
1 fer). 

; Aristotle born : Plato act. 


4. Callias 

101. Charisan- 


2. Hippoda- i 375 

mus I 




382 Lysias or. 26 Kara Evav- 
dpov, 1. 237. 

381 (—380 B.C.) Lysias frag. 

cxx. f. (Sauppe) virep 3>e- 

peviKov, 1. 308. 
380 Lysias (1. 152). 

379 Gorgias and Aristophanes 
die about this time. 

378 ( — 376 B.C.) Isocrates com- 
panion and secretary of 
Timotheus, 11. 9. 
These orators nourish : — 
Callistratus, Leodamas, 
Thrasybulus and Cepha- 
lus of Colly tus, 11. 372. 

377 ( — 37lB.c.)Isaeusor. 107T€pt 
rod 'Apicrrapxov nXrjpov, 
11. 333. 


— 351, Second period of the 

school of Isocrates, 11. 

Death of Antisthenes, 11. 

Isaeus or. 8 irepi rod Klpoj- 

vos Kkrjpov ? II. 327. 
Araros (son of Aristophanes) 

and Eubulus, earliest 

poets of Middle Comedy. 
Isocrates or. 2 7r/x>s Nt/co- 

K\ea, 11. 83. 

Isocrates or. 14 HXarcu/cos, 
11. 175. 

Olynthus besieged by Lacedae- 
monians, 11. 148. — Beginning 
of Olynthian War (—379), 
11. 156. Cotys becomes King 
of Thracian Odrysae. Iphi- 
crates goes against him with 
Athenian force : then makes 
peace with him, 11. 338. 

The Cadmeia seized by Lace- 
daemonians, 11. 150. — Philip 
of Macedon, son of Amyntas 
II., born: cf. 359 B.C. 

Phlius besieged by Lacedaemo- 
nians, 11. 148. 

End of Olynthian War, 11. 

Athens at the head of a new 
Naval Confederacy, n. 9. — 
Financial reform : establish- 
ment of the 20 (TvpLfiopiaL for 
payment of war-tax, 11. 29. 

QrifHaiKbs irdXefjios (11. 331) begins 
( — 371 B.C.). Invasions of 
Boeotia by Agesilaus and 
Cleombrotus, 11. 175. 

Agesilaus invades Boeotia. — 
Thebes begins to reorganise 
the Boeotian Confederacy, 11. 

End of war (385 — ) between 
Evagoras and Artaxerxes II., 
11. 156. Cleombrotus invades 

Timotheus sails round Pelopon- 
nesus : Corcyra and other 
cities of the Ionian Sea join 
the Athenian League. 

— 370 B.C., Jason of Pherae 
tagos of Thessaly, 11. 18. 
Death of Evagoras king of 
the Cyprian Salamis, 11. 103. 
Congress at Sparta. Peace 
between Athens and Sparta, 
n. 177 : Thebes excluded 
from it, ib. 180. 

Plataea destroyed. Walls of 
Thespiae razed by Thebans, 
11. 177-8. At this time 



Olympiads and 

102. Alcisthe- 

2. Phrasielei- 

3. Dysnicetus 

4. Lysistratus 

103. Nausigenes 

2. Polyzelus 

3. Cephiso- 








Isocrates or. 1 irpbs A?7- 
Iiovlkov ? 11. 80 : or. 3 
Nlkok\t)s rjKinrpLoi, II. 86. 

Isocrates or. 10 "E\£vrjs 
iyKibjULov, 11. 96. 

Isaeus or. 9 irepi rod 'Acrru- 
(piXov Kkrjpov, 11. 330. 

Isocrates Epist. 1. Alouvulo:, 
11. 239. 

Dionysius I. gains tragic 
prize with Aurpa/'E/cropos. 

Plato act. 62 visits Sicily 
for second time. 

Aristotle act. 17 comes to 
Athens, where he lives 
till Plato's death in 347. 

Isocrates or. 6 'Apxida/ios, 
11. 193. 

Demosthenes comes of age: 
his studies with Isaeus 
probably begin, 11. 268. 

Oropus belonged to Athens. 
178 : cf. 412 B.C.— Timotheus 
deposed from his (rrpar-qyla 
and accused by Iphicrates 
and Callistratus. — Iphicrates, 
Chabrias, Callistratus chosen 

Battle of Leuctra, July 6. 11. 

General Peace (excluding the 
Thebans) concluded at Sparta 
(" Peace of Callias "), June 16. 
11. 138. — Jason of Pherae 
enters Greece as mediator. 

Jason assassinated, 11. 18. First 
march of Epameinondas into 
Peloponnesus : invasion of 
Laconia : foundation of Me- 
galopolis and of the new 
Messene, 11. 193. 

Second march of Epameinon- 
das into Peloponnesus. First 
expedition sent by Dionysius 

I. of Syracuse to help the 
Corinthians and Spartans : 
Athens also forms friendly 
relations with him. — Death 
of Amyntas II. of Macedon : 
accession of his eldest son 
Alexander II. (brother of 

Second expedition sent by Dio- 
nysius I. 

Pelopidas imprisoned by Alex- 
ander of Pherae : released by 
Epameinondas. — Philip {act. 
14) sent by Ptolemaeus as 
a hostage to Thebes : lives 
there till 365 B.C. — Alex- 
ander II. of Macedon put to 
death bv usurper Ptolemaeus 
(—365 B.C.) 

Death of Dionysius I. of Syra- 
cuse, 11. 18. His son Diony- 
sius II. succeeds him. 

Third march of Epameinondas 
into Peloponnesus. — Timo- 
theus again in command of 
Athenian fleet. 

Sparta refuses to recognise 
Messene. Corinth. Epidau- 
rus and Phlius make peace 
for themselves with Thebes. 

II. 194. 

Oropus revolts from Athens and 
is occupied by the Thebans. 



Olympiads and 
Ar el ions. 



2. Charicleides I 363 



4. Nicophemus 

105. Callimedes 





Isocrates or. 
11. 103. 

9 Euayopas \ 

104. Timocrates | 364 ; (- 

-363 B.C.) Isaeus or. 6 irepl 
rod <§>L\oKTriiJLovos KXrjpov, 
11. 343. 

Demosthenes or. 27 Kara 
'A</>6/3ou a/, or 28 /caret 
'A<p6(3ov p', 11. 302. 

Demosthenes or. 30 7rpos 
'Ovrjropa a\ or 31 Trpos 
'Ov/jTopa (3', 11. 302. 

Plato's third visit to Sicily. 

Xenoplion closes his 'E\- 
\7jvlk& (411 B.C. — ) at the 
battle of Mantineia. 

Demosthenes or. 41, irpbs 
"Zirovdiav, or. 55irpbs KaA- 
Ai/cAea, 11. 302. 

Deinarchus born. 

( — 353 B.C.) Isaeus or. 1 irepl 

rod KXecouv/aov KXrjpov, II. 

Hypereides Kar AvtokXcovs, 

11. 331. 
Praxiteles, sculptor, flor. 
Isaeus or. 11 irepl rod "Ayvlov 

KXrjpov, 11. 355. 
Demosthenes trierarch. 
Isocrates Jfipist. vi. rots 'Id- 

cfopos ttcugLv, 11. 242. 

Callistratus and Chabrias im- 
peached for the Oropus affair 
by Leodamas, Philostratus 
KoXojvevs, and (?) Hegesip- 
pus :— acquitted. 

Timotheus reduces Samos 
(where KXrjpovxoL are estab- 
lished), Sestos and Crithote. 
— Perdiccas III. (second son 
of Amyntas II. and brother 
of Philip) King of Macedon 
(—359 B.C.) 

Timotheus succeeds to the com- 
mand of Iphicrates in Thrace : 
takes Methone, Pydna, Poti- 
daea, Torone. 

Expedition of Pelopidas into 
Thessaly : his death. 

Campaign of Timotheus against 
Cotys and Byzantines : his 
return to Athens. 

Fourth and last march of Epa- 
meinondas into Peloponnesus. 
Battle of Mantineia (July 3) ; 
death of Epameinondas. 
General peace, excluding 
Sparta. — Autocles Athenian 
commander at the Helles- 

Archidamus III. succeeds his 
father Agesilaus as a king of 
Sparta, 11. 18.— Callistratus 
flies from Athens to Thasos : 
Thasians recolonise Datos, 
11. 185. Aristophon orjfia- 

War between Artaxerxes II. and 
his satrap Orontes : Athens 
supports the latter, 11. 185. 

Death of Artaxerxes II. M.vfj- 
fjiwv, 405 B.C. — Accession of 
Artaxerxes III. C^x os — 337 
B.C.) — Perdiccas III. of Ma- 
cedon killed in battle with II- 
lyrians : contest for throne : 
accession of Philip ( — 336 b. c. ) 
— Alexander of Pherae mur- 
dered by his wife Thebe's half- 
brothers, Tisiphonus, Peitho- 
laus and Lycophron, 11. 242. 

Cotys, king of Thracian Odry- 
sae, murdered : his son Cer- 
sobleptes prevails, in a con- 
test for the succession, over 
Berisades and Amadocus II., 
11. 184. 



Olympiads and 

3. Cephisodo- 


4. Agathocles 

106. Elpines 


3. Diotimus 

4. Eudemus 

107. Aristode- 






2. Thessalus 





Isaeus frag, xvi (Sauppe) ■; 

virep Hjv/j.&0ovs, II. 367. j 
Demosthenes or. 54 Kara \ 

Koviovos 1 11. 302. 
Isocrates Epist. ix 'Ap%i- 

dd/uq}, II. 244 
Alexis writes Comedy. 
Isocrates or. 8 irepl ttjs elprj- 

vrjs (or avpLfiaxiKos) : or. 7 

'ApeoTrayLTLKos, II. 202. 
Demosthenes or. 22 Kara 

'AvSpoTiwvos, 11. 303. 
Aristotle may have taught 

Rhetoric as early as this 

Death of Xenophon ? 
Isaeus or. 2 irepl rod Meve- 

k\covs Kkrjpov, II. 336. 
Dem. or. 14 irepl twv av/x- ! 

fiopcQv, 11. 302, 373, or. j 

20 irpbs AeTTTLvrjv, II. 303.1 

Isocrates or. 15 irepl rrjs 
avridocreojs, II. 131. 

Isaeus or. 7 irepl rod 'AiroX- 
Xodibpov KXrjpov, II. 325. 

Demosthenes or. 16 virep 
Me*ya\o7ro\iTU>i>, or. 24 
Kara TifiOKparovs, or. 23 
Kara 'ApLcrroK parous, or. 36 
virep Qopjuicovos, II. 302. 

Theodectes tragicus flor. 
Theopompus, historian, 

Demosthenes or. 4 Kara <£>t- 
\lirirov a , II. 303 : or. 15 
vireprrjs 'Voblwv ekevdepias. 

Chios, Cos, Rhodes, Byzantium 
revolt from Athens. Social 
"War begins ( — 355 B.C.), 11. 
182. Philip takes Amphipo- 
lis, 11. 184. Treaty between 
Chares and Cersobleptes : 
Thracian Chersonese (except 
Cardia) ceded to Athens, ib. 

Third form of the Trierarchy 
brought in by the av/xjuopiaL 
of Periander : cf. 410 B.C. 

Philip victor at Olympia : takes 
and destroys Potidaea : founds 
Philippi. Alexander the Great 
born. Chares defeats a Per- 
sian force, 11. 206. 

Social War ends (midsummer), 
11. 182. — Phocian (or Sacred) 
War begins ( — 346 B.C.). — 
Oligarchies set up at Corey ra. 
Chios, Mytilene, etc., 11. 249! 

Eubulus becomes financial 
minister of Athens (ra/xtas 
rrjs KOLvrjs irpoaodov), II. 25 : cf. 
338 B.C. — Timotheus brought 
to trial : dies at Chalcis. — 
Callistratus returns to Athens 
(cf. 361 B.C.) : — his death, 11. 
185. — The Generals Iphicrates, 
Menestheus and Timotheus 
arraigned by Aristophon and 

Philip marches along the Thra- 
cian coasts, and takes Abdera 
and Maroneia. — Philip takes 
Methone : is defeated in 
Thessaly by Onomarchus. 

Philip re-enters Thessaly : de- 
feats Phocian s under Ono- 
marchus (who is killed), and 
advances to Thermopylae : 
finds it held by Athenians, 
and retires. He marches to 
Heraeon on Propontis : dic- 
tates peace to Cersobleptes, 
makes alliance with Cardia, 
Perinthus and Byzantium. — 
He frees Pherae from the 
Tyranny, 11. 242. 

Death of Mausolus. Artemisia 
proposes a contest of oratory : 
Theopompus the historian 



( Hympiacls and 

3. Apollodorus 

4. Callimachus 

108. Theophilus 

2. Themistocles 

3. Archias 

4. Eubulus 







(—338.) Third period of the 
school of Isocrates, 11. 11. 

Demosthenes or. 39 7rpbs 
Bolcotou Trepl rod ovo/jlcltos, 
11. 302. 

Isocrates Epist. vin roh 
MvTiXrji'aicjv apxovai.i>, 11. 

Death of Isaeus ? 11. 271. 

Demosthenes or. 26 /card 
MecSiov, or. 1 'OXwOlol- 
kos a, or. 2 'OXvvOlclkos 

Demosthenes or. 

dlCLKOS 7'. 

3 'OXvv- 

[Dem.] or. 40 77750s Bolutop 

7T€pl TTpOLKOS. 

Death of Plato aet. 82. 
Aristotle leaves Athens and 

goes to Hermeias of Atar- 


Isocrates or. 5 ^lXlttttos 

(April), ir. 165. 
Demosthenes or. 5 irepi el- 

prjV7]s (August). 


Demosthenes or. 37 -rrpbs j 

llavraiverov, or. 38 irpbs j 

^aval/Jiaxov, II. 302. 

"a Ttjidp- 

Aeschines or. 1 Kara 

gains the prize, 11. 11. Idri- 
eus, brother of Mausolus, suc- 
ceeds Artemisia as dynast ot 
Caria,n. 171. — Philip marches 
against the Molossian Aryb- 
Enboeans ally themselves with 
Athens. Phocion leads Athe- 
nians to support Plutarchus 
of Eretria : battle of Tamy- 
nae. — Apollodorus tried and 
condemned for proposing to 
apply the OeupLKov to the war. 
—First help sent by Athens 
to Olynthus. 

Philip makes war on Olynthus 
and the Chalcidic towns. 
Alliance between Olynthians 
and Athens. — Second Athe- 
nian expedition, under Chares, 
to help them. 

Philip besieges Olynthus — third 
Athenian expedition, under 
Chares, to help it: — Philip 
takes Olynthus : destroys it 
and the 32 Chalcidic towns 
of its Confederacy. 

Philip renews war with Cerso- 
bleptes (cf. 352) — which he 
ends in 346 by dictating a 
peace. Athenian troops un- 
der Chares sent to Thrace. — 
Mytilene returns into alliance 
with Athens. 

Envoys (Philocrates, Aeschines, 
Demosthenes, etc.) sent by 
Athens to Philip. — Philip 
goes to Thracian War. — Anti- 
pater and Parmenion nego- 
tiate with Athenian envoys. 
— Peace "of Philocrates" 
ratified on part of Athens 
and allies (April). — Second 
Athenian embassy to await 
Philip at Pella : he returns 
and takes the envoys to 
Pherae : ratifies peace there 
(end of June). — Philip occu- 
pies Phocis : end of Phocian 

Philip becomes a member of 
Amphictyonic Council, and 
thereby a Greek Power. 

Philip marches against Illyrii, 
Dardani, Triballi. — Timoleon 
of Corinthgoes against Diony- 
sius II. of Syracuse. 


Olympiads and 


109. Lyciscus 





110. Theophras- 






Lysimachi- 339 

Isocrates EpisL vn. Tljulo- 

decp, II. 247. 
The AriXiaKos of Hypereides 

(cf. ii. 386 n. ) earlier than 

344 : Sauppe it. 285 f. 
Demosthenes or. 6 Kara 

^lXIttttov ft . 
Aristotle removes from At- 

arneus to Mytilene. 
Epliorus, historian, flor. 

Demosthenes or. 19, and 
Aeschines or. 2, irepl ttjs 

Antiphanes still writing 

Hegesippus ([Dem.] or. 7), 

irepl 'A\ovi>r)<jov. 
Isocrates Epist. II. QiXiinru) 

a', ii. 251 : Epist. v. 

'AXeij&vdpqj, II. 253. 
Aristotle begins to teach 

Menander born. 
Demosthenes or. 8 -rrepl rwv 

h ~K€p<roi>i>rj<T(x), or. 9 /card 

^LXiTrirov y'. 
Aphareus tragicns flor. down 

to this time. 

Isocrates Epist. iv. 'Azm- 

TT&TpCx), II. 254. 

Anaximenes 'P^-ropi/d? [irpbs 
'AXe^avdpov] ? 

Isocrates or. 12 UavadrjvaC- 

kos, II. 110. 
Xenocrates begins to teach 

in the Academy. 

Timoleon frees Sicily. — Philip 
begins to meddle in Pelopon- 
nesus. Demosthenes goes 
thither to counteract him. 
Embassy, in remonstrance, 
from Philip, Argos and Mes- 
sene to Athens. 

Philocrates is accused by Hy- 
pereides : goes into exile. — 
Aeschines is accused by Demo- 
sthenes of malversation in 
the embassy (346 B.C.), but is 

Philip sets up tetrarchies in 
Thessaly. — His letter to 
Athens about Halonnesus. — 
Alliance between Euboean 
Chalcis and Athens. — Begin- 
ning of Philip's Third Thra- 
cian War (—339 B.C.): cf. 
352, 347 B.C. 

Feud between Cardia and Attic 
cleruchi of Chersonese. — 
Philip supports Cardia : Dio- 
peithes, Athenian General, 
ravages Thracian seaboard. 
Letter of Philip to Athens 
about the Chersonese. — Philip 
approaches Perinthus. — De- 
mosthenes envoy to Byzan- 
tium : its alliance with 

Philip besieges Perinthus and 
Byzantium:— Athenians under 
Chares support Byzantines.— 
Philip's ultimatum : Athens, 
on proposal of Demosthenes, 
declares war. — Fourth form 
of the Trierarchy brought 
in by law of Demosthenes, 
equalising the burden on tax- 
able capital : cf. 410, 357 B.C. 

Aeschines and Meidias go as 
irvXaybpai to Amphictyonic 
Council : Amphictyons make 
war on Locrians of Amphissa. 
— Second Athenian force sent 
to help Byzantium : Philip 
raises the siege. — Amphicty- 
ons make Philip their General 
(Oct. ). He returns to Greece, 
defeats mercenaries under 
Chares and Proxenus, and 
destroys Amphissa. 



Olympiads and 

3. Chaerondas 

4. Phrynichus 

111. Pythode- 


2. Evaenetus 

3. Ctesicles 

4. Nicocrates 
112. Nicetes 







Isocrates Ejrist. in. QChiinrq 

j3', 11. 256. 
Death of Isocrates, 11. 30. 
( — 326 B.C.) Lycurgus, the 

orator, is rafxias rr)s kolvtjs 

irpoaodov, II. 375. 

(Jan. ?) At the annual win- 
ter Festival of the Dead 
in the outer Cerameicus, 
Demosthenes speaks the 
epitaph of those who fell 
at Chaeroneia. [Not ex- 
tant : the Demosthenic 
or. 60 is spurious.] 

Ctesiphon proposes (March) 
that Demosthenes should 
be crowned at the Great 

Aeschines gives notice of an 
action irapavo/xajv against 

Deinarchus begins his ac- 
tivity as Xoyoypdcpos. 

The surrender of Demo- 

Lycurgus, etc. is demanded 
from Athens by Alex- 
ander : — Demades helps 
to arrange a peace. 

Aristotle settles at Athens 
and teaches in the Ly- 
ceum. — His 'VrjTopLKT] cer- 
tainly later than 338 B.C. 

Commissioners (including De- 
mosthenes) appointed to re- 
store fortifications of Athens : 
Demosthenes administers the 
dewpiKov. — Immediately after 
destroying Amphissa, Philip 
hands over the Achaean Nau- 
pactus to the Aetolians : then 
enters Phocis, and occupies 
Cytinion and Elateia (Feb. ?). 

Battle of Chaeroneia : fierayeiT- 
vlCovos €(386/17) (Aug. 2. ? Curt, 
v. 436 Eng. tr. n.). Peace 
" of Demades" between Philip 
and Athens. End of Athenian 
Naval Hegemony : Congress 
of Corinth : Hellenic League 
under Macedonian Hegemony: 
Philip Hellenic General against 
Persia. — Artaxerxes III. 
( T Oxos) dies : Arses succeeds 

Death of Arses : Dareius III. 
King of Persia ( — 330 B.C.). 

Parmenion and Attains open the 
Persian War in Asia. 

Philip assassinated at Aegae 
(early in August). 

Alexander the Great becomes 
king of Macedon. — He enters 
Greece : Thessaly, Amphic- 
tyons, Athens and Congress 
of Corinth acknowledge his 

Parmenion repulsed in Asia by 
Memnon, who takes Ephesus. 
— Thebans rise against Mace- 
don : Alexander takes and 
destroys Thebes (autumn). 

Alexander sets out for Persia]) 
War, and crosses Hellespont ; 
wins battle of Granicus (May): 
reduces Aeolis and Ionia : 
takes Miletus and Haliear- 
nassus : and advances to Gor- 
dion in Phrygia. 

Alexander routs Dareius III. at 
Issus (Oct.). 

Alexander besieges Tyre ; takes 
it (July) : takes Gaza : occu- 


Olympiads and 

2. Aristopha- 

3. Aristophon 

4. Cephiso- 

113. Euthycri- 

2. Hegemon 

3. Chremes 

4. Anticles 








Lysippus, sculptor, flor. 
With his school began a 
decline of Sculpture, pa- 
rallel to that of Oratory. 
Cf. it. 447. 

Callisthenes of Stageirus, 
who went with Alexan- 
der to Asia, represents 
the decay of taste in ora- 
torical prose. 

(August ?) Demosthenes or. 
18 irepl tov arecpavov, 
Aeschines or. 3 /card Kttj- 
<j«f)QvTos, 11. 399. — Aes- 
chines leaves Athens. 

Lycurgns /card Aew/cpdrous, 
11. 377. 

Denmdes administers the 
dewpiKov. — [Dem.] or. 17 
irepl tCov irpbs ' ' KXe^avdpov 
(TvvdrjKQi/ (by Hegesip- 
pus ?). 

Hypereides imep Eu£e/n7r- 
ttou? 11. 388. 

Between 330 and 326 B.C. 
(Schafer) there was a 
great dearth at Athens, 
during which Demo- 
sthenes administered the 

End of financial adminis- 
tration of Lycurgus (338 
b. c. — ) : Menesaechmus 
becomes rap.ias. 

Fictitious date of the speech 
irepl T7)S 5w5e/caertas (i.e. 
338-326 B.C.): not by 
Demades, Sauppe 11. 312. 

pies Egypt : founds Alex- 
andria : winters at Memphis. 
Alexander crosses Euphrates 
(July) ; routs Dareius at 
Arbela (Oct.) ; marches to 
Babylon, Susa and Perse- 

Spartans, under Agis III., rise 
against Macedon : are defeat- 
ed at Megalopolis by Anti- 
pater ; and accept Macedonian 
hegemony : death of Agis III. 
— Alexander pursues Dareius, 
who is murdered by Bessus in 
Parthia : — enters Hyrcania, 
Drangiania, and Aracosia : 
founds Alexandria ad Cauca- 
sum (Kandahar ?). 

Alexander enters Bactria and 
Sogdiana ; takes Maracanda 
(Samarcand) : crosses the 
Oxns and advances to Jaxar- 
tes : founds Alexandria Es- 
chate (Khojend ?). — Returns 
to winter - quarters in Bac- 

Alexander subdues Sogdiana. — 
Slays Cleitus at Maracanda. 
— Harpalus sends supplies of 
corn to Athens, and receives 
the citizenship. 

Alexander crosses the Indus and 
enters the Punjaub. 

Alexander defeats Porus. — 
Begins his river- voyage south- 
wards through India. 

Alexander reaches mouth of 
Indus about July.— Sets out 
on march westward in Aug., 
and reaches capital of Gedro- 
sia in Oct. — Nearchus sails 
for Persian Gulf in Oct. — 
Harpalus, the profligate trea- 
surer of Alexander, crosses 
from Asia to Attica: — is 



Olympiads and 

114. Hegesias 

2. Cephisoclo- 

i. Philocles 




4. Archippus 

115. Neaechmus 

2. Apollodorus 

3. Archippus 

116. 4. 
120. 1. 


Deinarchus or. 1 /caret A77- 
fAocrdevovs, or. 2/cara 'Apicr- 
royeLTovos, or. 3 koltcl <£t- 
\ok\€ovs, 11. 373. 

Hypereides /cara AijfioaOe- 
vovs. — Death of Lyeur- 
gus (before midsummer). 

Epicurus act. 18 comes to 

Hypereides iirirdfaos, 11. 

Death of Hypereides (Oct. 
5). Death of Demo- 
sthenes (Oct. 12). Aris- 
totle retires to Chalcis, 
and dies there (Oct. ?). 

Theophrastus succeeds him 
in the Lyceum. 

New Comedy beginning. — 
Menander aet. 21 'Opyrj 
(his first play). — Phile- 
mon, Diphilus comici 

122. 3. 




Death of Demades. — Deme- 
trius Phalereus flor. 

Decline of Oratory begins. 

Death of Aeschines. 

Cleitarchus of Soli, repre- 
sentative of the florid 

Hegesias of Magnesia, the | 
so-called founder of Asian- i 
ism, flor. j 

warned from the Peiraeus, 
and goes to Taenaron. 

Alexander celebrates the Dio- 
nysia at Susa. — Death of 
Hephaestion at Ecbatana. — 
Athens decrees divine honours 
to Alexander. — Demosthenes 
apxtOtupos at Olympia (July). 
— Areiopagus directs that 
Demosthenes, Philocles, De- 
mades, etc. be prosecuted for 
taking bribes from Harpalus. 
— Demosthenes is fined and im- 
prisoned : — escapes to Aegina. 

Alexander holds court at Baby- 
lon and receives the embas- 
sies. — His death, June 8. 

Lamian War, promoted by 
H}^pereides. — Leosthenes of 
Athens defeats Antipater at 
Heracleia and besieges him 
in Lamia. 

Leosthenes killed before Lamia. 
Antiphilus succeeds to com- 
mand of the Greeks and de- 
feats Leonnatus. — Decisive 
victory of Macedonians at 
Craimon (Aug. 5). — Hellenic 
League breaks up. Athens 
submits to Antipater. On 
proposal of Demades, the Ec- 
clesia pronounces Demo- 
sthenes, Hypereides, and 
others, traitors. 

Alexander's Empire divided 
among his Generals. Ptole- 
my founds a monarchy in 
Egypt (306 B.C.). The descend- 
ants of Seleucus found a king- 
dom in Asia, which afterwards 
shrinks up into Syria. In 
Macedonia there is confusion 
till about 272 B.C.: then the 
house of Antigonus reigns till 
168 B.C., when Rome abolishes 
the kingdom. 

Death of Antipater. 

j 306-285. Ptolemy Soter. 



127. 3. 
129. 1. 

130. 1. 

132. 3. 
157. 3. 

145. 1. 

146. 3. 
156. 1. 
158. 3. 

165. 1. 

166. 3. 

167. 3. 







168. 3. 

170. 1. 


Theocritus, Bion, Moschus 

Timaeus of Tauromenium 
(now aet. circ. 70, resi- 
dent at Athens since 
about 310 B.C.) brought 
his History down to this 
year. He represents the 
epigrammatic Asianism. 

Callimachus, the poet, lib- 
rarian of Alexandria. 

A period of almost total 
darkness in the history 
of Greek Oratory. When 
light returns, Asianism 
is fully dominant, but a 
reaction to Atticism is 
just beginning. 

Aristophanes librarian of 

Apollonius Rhodius libra- 
rian of Alexandria. 

Aristarchus librarian of 

Polybius brought his His- 
tory from 264 B.C. (where 
Timaeus left off) to this 

Hierocles and Menecles 
represent the epigram- 
matic Asianism in its 

Hortensius born. 

Approximate date for Her- 
magoras of Temnos [usu- 
ally put much too late 
— by Clinton, about 62 
b. 0. See Cic. de Invent. 
1. 8, written about 84 
B.C., which shows that 
Hermagoras was then 
long dead : Blass, die 
Griech. Ber. von Alex. 
bis zu Aug., pp. 84 f.] 
— Hermagoras founds 
the Scholastic Rhetoric, 
and thus prepares the 
way for Atticism. 

Apollonius 6 /uaXctKos emi- 
nent as a teacher of 
Rhetoric at Rhodes. 

Cicero born. 

Established fame of the 
Rhodian eclectic school 
of Oratory, — Attic in 
basis, but with Asian 

Julius Caesar born. 

Greek Rhetoric is already 

Ptolemy Philadel- 


280-251. First 

Achaean League 
247-222. Ptolemy Euergetes. 


205-181. Ptolemy Epiphanes. 

197. Battle of Cynoscephalae. 
The Greek allies of Rome, 
though nominally free, are 
henceforth practically de- 

Corinth destroyed. The Achae- 
an cities become formally 
subject to Rome. 

145. Polybius legislates for the 
Achaean cities. 




171. 2. 

172. i. 

173. 3. 


174. i. 




175. i. 


175. 2. 
177. 4. 

181. 2. 

182. 3. 

183. i. 



184. i. 

187. 3. 

188. 4- 

189. 4. 










thoroughly fashionable j 
at Rome. 

Apollonius, surnamed Mo- j 
Ion (Cicero's master), 
eminent at Rhodes. 

L. Plotius and others open j 
schools at Rome for the j 
teaching of Rhetoric, no 
longer in Greek, but in 

Cicero Be Inventione ? j 

Caius Licinius Calvus born. 

The Ithetorica ad Hcrcn- 
nium (incerti) not earlier 
than this year. — Aeschy- 
lus of Cnidusand Aeschi- 
nes of Miletus represent 
the florid Asianism. Cf. 
120 B.C. 

Cicero, aet. 27, at Athens. 

Hortensius, the Roman re- 
presentative of Asian- 
ism, is Consul. After 
this time he comes little 
forward as a speaker ; 
and leaves the field to 
Cicero, the representa- 
tive of the Ehodian 

Cicero Be Oratore. 

Calvus represents pure At- 
ticism of the Lysian type. 

Apollodorus of Pergamus 
and Theodoras of Gadara 
are rival masters of Scho- 
lastic Rhetoric. 

Death of Calvus. 

Cicero Brutus. 

Cicero Orator. 

Cicero Be Optimo Genere 

Death of Cicero. 

Didymus of Alexandria, 
grammarian and critic, 

. flor -. 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus 

and Caecilius of Calacte, 
a Sicilian Greek, nourish 
at Rome as scholars and 
critics. Victory of Atti- 
cism over Asianism com- | 
plete and nearly univer- j 

Sulla takes Athens. 

Death of Caesar. 

Octavianus (Augustus Caesar) 
begins to govern the Republic 
as Emperor. 

I Athens deprived of its jurisdic- 
j tion over Eretria and Aegina : 
Confederacy of the free La- 
I conian cities formed by Au- 




198. 2. 

199. 2. 

213. 2. 

214. 4. 

217. 2. 

230. 3. 

234. 4. 





237. 2. 


242. 2. 

247. 2. 
249. 4. 
251. i. 




Strabo (born 66 B.C.) pub- 
lished his yeuiypcKpiKa 
about this year. 

Tacitus Dialogus Be Ora- 

The /Stoc rCov 8£kcl pr/ropoju, 
wrongly ascribed to Plu- 
tarch, were perhaps com- 
piled about this time, 
chiefly from Caecilius. 

Plutarch flor. 

Quin tilian flor. 

Herodes Atticus, the mas- 
ter in Greek oratory of 
Marcus Aurelius and Lu- 
cius Verus, is made con- 
sul aet. 40, by Antoninus 
Pius. — Favorinus and 
Fronto flor. 

Lucian, a Syrian of Samo- 
sata, writes the best At- 
tic prose since Hyper- 
eides. — Aulus Gellius 
Nodes Atticae. — Pausa- 
nias the geographer, 
Ptolemy the astronomer, 
Polyaenus (^TpaTrjyrj- 
fiara), and Galen flor. 

Publius Aelius Aristeides, 
of Mysia, in his Havad-q- 
vcukos and iepol \6yoc, 
imitates the Attic 
models of eTridei&s. 

Hermogenes makes a com- 
plete digest of the Schol- 
astic Rhetoric since Her- 
magoras of Temnos (110 
B.C.). It is contained 
in his Trepl crrdcreoju, Trepl 
ideQv, Trepl evpecrews, Trepl 
/xe668ov 8eivoT7}TOS, irpo- 
yvpLvda/jLara (in Rhetor es 
Gracci, ir. Spengel). 
Hermog. was the chief 
authority on his subject 
till Aphthonius. 

Athenaeus AetTruocrocpLaTaL 
Dio Cassius flor. — The 


Pollux drawn up about 
this time. 

Tertullian flor. 

Origen flor. 

Sextus Empiricus -rrpbs tovs 
fj.adrnAa.Ti.K0vs avnppr\Ti- 
kol : a controversy with 
the professors of (1) 
grammar and history, 

Death of Augustus. 






His visits 

to Athens, 122-135. 

138-161. Antoninus Pius. 

161-180. Marcus Aurelius. 




253. 3. 
259. 4. 

264. 4. 

273. 3. 

282. 2. 

289. 4. 






(2) rhetoric, (3) geome- 
try, (4) arithmetic, (5) 
astrology, (6) music. — 
Diogenes Laertius <pi\6- 
aocpoi fMoi. 

Philostratus (3col ao(pLarQj/. 
Aelian flor. 

Longinus (Alovvctlos Kdc- 
(tlos A0771J/0S) flor. His 
rexvri p7)T0piicq is printed 
in llhet. Graec, 11. 298 
f., ed. Spengel. [The 
treatise On the Sublime 
(ire pi vxpovs, ib. 245 f. ) 
may be his, and is at 
least of about this date. 
The ground of the doubt 
is that the oldest MS. 
has Aiovvcriov (certainly 
nottheHalicarnassian) 77 
Aoyyluov : another, avu- 


Tiraaeus \e£ets UXarajviKai. 

Aphthonius TrpoyvpLpdcrpiara 
(in Rhet. Grace. 11. 
Spengel). This book 
superseded Hermogenes 
in the schools. At the 
Revival of Letters it 
again became a text- 
book of Rhetoric, saec. 
xvi. and xvn. 

Libanius of Antioch viro- 
0€<7€ls els rovs ArjfwcrOevovs 
\6yovs, jStos ArjpLocrde- 
vovs : fAeKerai : irpoyvja- 
uaafxdroov wapadeiy/iaTa, 
etc. — Gregory of Nazi- 
anzus : Athanasius flor. 

Aelius Theon, of Alexan- 
dria, 7rpoyvfxvd<Tjuara (in 
Rhet. Graec. 11. Speng.). 
[The only clue to his date 
is that he certainly used 
both Hermog. and Aph- 
thonius, though he does 
not name them ; and 
probably wrote while 
the popularity of the 
latter was fresh. Cf. 
Walz, Rhet. Graec. vol. 
v. pp. 137 f.]. 

Eunapius of Sardis, /Sfoi 
(ptXodocpojv kcll aocpLcrrQv. 

284-305. Diocletian. 

306. Flavius Valerius Con- 
stantinus (the Great) begins 
to reign. 

323-337. Constantine makes 
Christianity the religion of 
the Empire, and builds Con- 
stantinople as its new capital. 

361-363. Julian Emperor. 
379-395. Theodosius the Great. 

396-420. The Pagan religion 
prohibited, and (except in the 
rural districts) extinguished. 



293. 2. 






Ioannes, surnamed Xpi'tro- 
cttojulos, archbishop of 

Ioannes Stobaeus, 'AvdoXo- 
yLOv 'E/cXoycu. 

Photius raised to the 
patriarchate, 25th Dec, 

(3l(3\lO$'r)K7) ) \ei;€U)l> (JVV- 

a*y ■cjyrj. 

? Byzantine 'ErvfioXoyucbv 

? Suidas Xe^eis. 

Harpocration's Lexicon to 
the Ten Orators (Xe£ets 
tHov l' prjToptov) was used 
both by the compilers of 
the Etymologicum and 
by Suidas. Its author 
has been identified (1) 
with the Harpocration 
who taught Lucius 
Verus, about 150 a.d. : 

(2) with the poet and 
teacher praised by Li- 
banius, about 350 a.d. : 

(3) with the Harpocra- 
tion of Mendes men- 
tioned by Athenaeus — 
whom Sehweighiiuser 
{ad xi v. 648 b) iden- 
tifies with the friend of 
Julius Caesar. 

Olympic Games abolished under 
Theodosius I. 

The Empire divided between 
the Caesar of the' West and 
the Caesar of the East. 

Charles, king of the Franks, 
crowned Emperor of Rome. 

Cherson, the last of the Greek 
Commonwealths, submits to 
Wladimir of Russia. 


In the reign of Augustus, when Eome had become The 
the intellectual no less than the political centre of AtSm. 1 
the earth, a controversy was drawing to a close for 
which the legionaries cared less than their master, 
but which for at least fifty years had been of some 
practical interest for the Forum and the Senate, and 
which for nearly three centuries had divided the 
schools of Athens, of Pergamus, of Antioch, of Alex- 
andria, of all places where men spoke and wrote a 
language which, though changed from the glory of its 
prime, was still the idiom of philosophy and of art. 
This controversy involved principles by which every 
artistic creation must be judged ; but, as it then 
came forward, it referred to the standard of merit 
in prose literature, and, first of all, in oratory. Are 
the true models those Attic writers of the fifth and 
fourth centuries, from Thucydides to Demosthenes, 
whose most general characteristics are, the subordina- 
tion of the form to the thought, and the avoidance 
of such faults as come from a misuse of ornament ? 
Or have these been surpassed in brilliancy, in freshness 
of fancy, in effective force, by those writers, belonging 
sometimes to the schools or cities of Asia Minor, some- 
times to Athens itself or to Sicily, but collectively 


called " Asiatics/' who flourished between Demosthenes 
and Cicero ? This was the question of Atticism against 
Asianism. For a long time Asianism had been pre- 
dominant. But, in the last century of the Kepublic, 
the contest had centred at Borne, at Eome it was 
fought out, and the voice that decided the strife of 
the schools was the same that commanded the nations. 
If the Eoman genius for art had little in common with 
the Greek, if it was ill fitted to apprehend the Greek 
subtleties, it had pre-eminently that sound instinct in 
large art-questions which goes with directness of 
character, with the faculty of creating and maintain- 
ing order and with reverence for the majesty of law. 
A ruling race may not always produce the greatest 
artists or the finest critics. But in a broad issue 
between a pure and a false taste its collective opinion 
is almost sure to be found on the right side. Borne 
pronounced for Atticism. 
caeciiius Among the Greeks then living in the Imperial 

and iMony- . . 

sms. City were two men, united by friendship, by com- 

munity of labours and by zeal for the Atticist revival ; 
symbols, by birthplace, of influences which in the 
past had converged upon the Athens of Pericles 
from Sicily and the Ionian East, — Caeciiius of Calacte 
and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, now met in that new 
capital of civilised mankind to which the arts, too, of 
Athens were passing. Both were scholars of manifold 
industry, in history, in archaeology, in literary criticism, 
in technical rhetoric, and in a field which the cata- 
logues of the libraries had left almost untouched — dis- 
crimination between the genuine and the spurious 
works of Attic writers. Both wrote upon the Attic 


orators, but with a difference of plan which is 

The lost work of Caecilius was entitled irepl ^a- caeciiius 
pafcrfjpos to)v Se/ca prjropwv, On the Style of the Ten olllt^ ilc 
Orators. These ten were Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Thedecade. 
Isocrates, Isaeus, Lycurgus, Aeschines, Hypereides, 
Demosthenes, Deinarchus. Now, Caecilius, and his 
contemporary Didymus, the grammarian and critic of 
Alexandria, are the earliest writers who know this 
decade. Dionysius takes no notice whatever of the 
canon thus adopted by his friend. He seems never 
to have heard of the number " ten " in connection 
with the Attic orators. But from the first century 
a.d. onwards the decade is established. It is attested, 
for instance, by the Lives of the Ten Orators, wrongly 
ascribed to Plutarch, but probably composed about 
80 a.d. ; by Quintilian ; by the neoplatonist Proclus, 
about 450 a.d.; and by Suidas, about 1100 a.d. — 
from whom it appears that, in his time, the grammar- 
ians had added a second list of ten to the first. The 
origin of the canon is unknown. It has been ascribed 
to Caecilius himself, mainly on the ground that it is 
not heard of before his time. It has been referred to 
Aristophanes the Byzantine, librarian at Alexandria 
about 200 B.C., or to his successor Aristarchus, about 
156 B.C., — by whom a canon of the poets, at least, was 
certainly framed. Another view is that it arose 
simply from the general tendency to reduce the 
number of distinguished names in any field to a 
definite number, — the tendency that gives the Seven 
Sages of Greece, the Seven Champions of Christendom, 
and the like. This last theory may safely be rejected. 


The decade includes at least three names which this 
kind of halo can never have surrounded — Andocides, 
Isaeus and Deinarchus. It excludes other orators 
who, though inferior as artists, would have had a 
stronger popular claim, such as Callistratus of 
Aphidnae, the chief organiser of the Athenian 
Confederacy in 378, of whom Demosthenes said, when 
asked whether he or Callistratus were the better 
speaker, " I, on paper — Callistratus on the platform/' 
— his opponents, Leodamas of Acharnae, Aristophon 
of Azenia, Thrasybulus and Cephalus of Collytus, — or 
that vigorous member of the anti-Macedonian party, 
Polyeuctus of Sphettus. Clearly, this canon was 
framed once for all by a critic or a school from whose 
decree contemporary opinion allowed no appeal, was 
adopted by successive generations, and ultimately 
secured the preservation of the writings which it con- 
tained, while others, not so privileged, were neglected, 
and at last suffered to perish. The decade was 
probably drawn up by Alexandrian grammarians in 
the course of the last two centuries before our era : 
but there is no warrant for connecting it with any 
particular name. 1 
Dionysius Dionysius, as has been said, altogether ignores 

orators. the decade. If we supposed that Caecilius was its 
author, . and that, when Dionysius wrote, Caecilius 
had not yet made his selection, the fact would be 
explained. But the double supposition involves the 

1 On the history of the decade, see in Blass, Die Gricchische Beredsam- 

Ruhnken, Historia Critica Oratovum keit in clem Zeitraum von Alexander 

Gh'aeconwi, who brings together the bis auf Augustus (Berlin, 1865) p. 

ancient authorities ; Meier, Comment. 193. 
Andoc. iv. 140 ; and the observations 


strongest improbability. Even if Caecilius had been 
the framer of the decade, it can hardly be doubted 
that at least the idea must have been known through 
him to his intimate friend Dionysius before the latter 
had completed the series of works which we possess, 
and that we should find some trace of it in those 
long lists of orators which Dionysius frequently gives. 
The truth probably is that Dionysius was perfectly 
aware of this arbitrary canon, but disregarded it, 
because it was not a help, but a hindrance, to the 
purpose with which he studied the Attic orators. 

Nothing is more characteristic of Dionysius as a 
critic than his resolution not to accept tradition as 
such, but to bring it to the test of reason. This 
comes out strikingly, for instance, in his distrust of 
merely prescriptive or titular authenticity when he 
is going through the list of an ancient writer s works. 
Now, his object in handling the Attic orators was His object 

n . in handling 

not to complete a set of biographies or essays, but to them. 
establish a standard for Greek prose, applicable alike 
to oratory and to every other branch of composition. 
He considers the orators, accordingly, less as indi- 
vidual writers than as representatives of tendencies. 
He seeks to determine their mutual relations, and, 
with the aid of the results thus obtained, to trace a 
historical development. The orators whom he chose 
as, in this sense, representative were six in number— 
Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Hypereides, 
Aeschines. We have his treatises on Lysias, Isocrates, 
and Isaeus. We have also the first part of his treatise 
on Demosthenes — that part in which he discusses 
expression as managed by Demosthenes ; the second 
vol. i e 


part, in which he discussed the Demosthenic handling 
of subject-matter, has perished with his discourses 
on Hypereides and Aeschines. The treatise on 
Deinarchus, it need hardly be said, is bibliographical, 
His ciassi- and has nothing to do with the other series. Dionysius 

fication — . -, -, • , n . . -, 

theevperai considers ins six orators as forming two classes. 

TeLiwraL Between these classes the line is clearly drawn. 
Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus are evperal, inventors, — differ- 
ing indeed, in degree of originality, but alike in this, 
that each struck out a new line, each has a distinctive 
character of which the conception w r as his own. 
Demosthenes, Hypereides, Aeschines, are reXeccorai, 
perfecters, — men who, having regard to the historical 
growth of Attic prose, cannot be said to have revealed 
secrets of its capability, but who, using all that their 
predecessors had provided, wrought up the several ele- 
ments in a richer synthesis or with a subtler finish. 1 

Plan of tins The task which I have set before me is to con- 
sider the lives, the styles and the writings of Antiphon, 
Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates and Isaeus, with a view 
to showing how Greek oratory was developed, and 
thereby how Greek prose was moulded, from the out- 
set of its existence as an art clown to the point at 
which the organic forces of Attic speech were matured, 
its leading tendencies determined, and its destinies 
committed, no longer to discoverers, but to those who 
should crown its perfection or initiate its decay. The 
men and the writings that mark this progress will 
need to be studied systematically and closely. It is 
hoped that much which is of historical, literary or 
social interest will be found by the way. But the 

1 Dionys. De Dcinarch. c. 1 ; cf. c. 5. 


great reward of the labour will be to get, if it may be, 
a more complete and accurate notion of the way in 
which Greek prose grew. It will not be enough, then, 
if we break off when the study of Isaeus has been 
finished. It will be necessary to look at the general 
characteristics of the mature political oratory built 
on those foundations at which Isaeus was the latest 
worker. It will be necessary to conceive distinctly 
how Isaeus and those before him were related to 
Lycurgus, Hypereides, Aeschines, Demosthenes. Nor 
must we stop here. The tendencies set in movement 
during the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. were not 
spent before they had passed into that life of the 
Empire which sent them on into the modern world. 
The inquiry which starts from the Athens of Pericles 
has no proper goal but in the Rome of Augustus. 

At the outset, it is well to clear away a verbal The Eng- 

. -, . . lisli word 

hindrance to the comprehension of this subject m its "orator" 
right bearings. The English term "orator," when 
it is not used ironically, is reserved for one who, in 
relation to speaking, has genius of an order analogous 
to that which entitles a man to be seriously called a 
poet. The term " oratory," though the exigencies 
of the language lead to its often being used as a mere 
synonym for " set speaking," is yet always incon- 
veniently coloured with the same suggestion either 
of irony or of superlative praise. The Roman term compared 
orator, " pleader," had this advantage over ours, that Latin, 
it related, not to a faculty, but to a professional or 
official attitude. It could therefore be applied to any 
one who stood in that attitude, whether effectively 
or otherwise. Thus the Romans could legitimately 



and with 
the Greek 

cance of 
the term 
' ' rhetor. ' 





and ancient 


say " mecliocris " or " malus orator," whereas, in Eng- 
lish, the corresponding phrases are either incorrect 
or sarcastic. Even the Romans, however, seem to 
have felt that their word was unsatisfactory, and to 
have confessed this sense by using "dicere," "ars 
dicendi," as much as possible. But the Greeks had 
a word which presented the man of eloquence, not, 
like the English word, as a man of genius, nor like 
the Roman word, as an official person, but simply as 
a speaker, prjroop. This designation was claimed by 
those Sicilian masters who taught men how to speak : 
at Athens it was given especially to the habitual 
speakers in the public assembly : in later times it 
was applied to students or theorists of Rhetoric. 
What, then, is the fact signified by this double 
phenomenon — that the Greeks had the word rhetor, 
and that they did not apply it to everybody ? It is 
this : that, in the Greek view, a man who speaks 
may, without necessarily having first-rate natural 
gifts for eloquence, or being invested with office, yet 
deserve to be distinguished from his fellows by the 
name of a speaker. It attests the conception that 
speaking is potentially an art, and that one who speaks 
may, in speaking, be an artist. 

This is the fundamental conception on which 
rests, first, the relation between ancient oratory and 
ancient prose ; secondly, the relation between ancient 
and modern oratory. 

The relation between ancient oratory and ancient 
prose, philosophical, historical or literary, is neces- 
sarily of the closest kind. Here our unfortunate 
word "oratory/' with its arbitrary and perplexing 


associations, is a standing impediment to clearness 
of view. The proposition will be more evident if 
it is stated thus : — In Greek and Eoman antiquity, 
that prose which was written with a view to being 
spoken stood in the closest relation with that prose 
which was written with a view to being read. Hence 
the historical study of ancient oratory has an interest 
wider and deeper than that which belongs to the 
study of modern oratory. It is that study by which 
the practical politics of antiquity are brought into 
immediate connexion with ancient literature. 

The affinities between ancient and modern oratory Relation 

t -i -i m between 

have been more often assumed than examined, lo Ancient 
discuss and illustrate them with any approach to Modem 
completeness would be matter for a separate work. 
"We must try, however, to apprehend the chief points. 
These shall be stated as concisely as possible, with such 
illustrations only as are indispensable for clearness. 

Ancient oratory is a fine art, an art regarded Ancient 

J m ° Oratory a 

by its cultivators, and by the public, as analogous fine art. 
to sculpture, to poetry, to painting, to music and 
to acting. This character is common to Greek and 
Eoman oratory ; but it originated with the Greeks, 
and was only acquired by the Romans. The evidence 
for this character may be considered as internal and 
external. 1 The internal evidence is that which is i. internal 


afforded by the ancient orations themselves. First, L Finisll 
we find in these, considered universally, a fastidious oi form * 
nicety of diction, of composition and of arrangement, 
which shows that the attention bestowed on their 

1 Some of the chief heads of the Dissertation on the Eloquence of the 
evidence are given by Brougham, Ancients. 


form, as distinguished from their matter, was both 
2. Kepeti- disciplined and minute. Secondly, we find the orator 

tions. 'ii i i 

occasionally repeating shorter or longer passages — not 
always striking passages — from some other speech of 
his own, with or without verbal amendments ; or we 
find him borrowing such passages from another 
orator. Thus Isocrates, in his Panegyricus, borrowed 
from the Olympiaciis of Lysias, and from the so-called 
Lysian Epitaphius. Demosthenes, in the speech 
against Meidias, borrowed from speeches of Lysias, 
of Isaeus and of Lycurgus, in like cases of outrage. 
In many places Demosthenes borrowed from himself. 
This was done on the principle that to koXw elirelv 
aTra% 7T€piyi<yv€TaL, St9 Se ov/c ivSi^erac : A thing CCtTi 

be iv ell said once, but cannot be ivell said tivice. 1 
That is, if a thought, however trivial, has once been 
perfectly expressed, it has, by that expression, become 
a morsel of the world's wealth of beauty. The 
doctrine might sometimes justify an artist in repeat- 
ing himself; as an excuse for appropriation, it omits 
to distinguish the nature of the individual's property 
in a sunset and in a gem ; but, among Greeks 
at least, it was probably not so much indolence as 
solicitude for the highest beauty, even in the least 
details, that prompted such occasional plagiarisms. 
Speakers Thirdly, we find that the orators, in addressing 

eachotLr's juries or assemblies, criticise each other's style. 
st} e " Aeschines, in a trial on which all his fortunes de- 
pended, quotes certain harsh or unpleasant figures of 
speech which, as he alleges, Demosthenes had used. 

1 Theon (who disputes the maxim) irpoyvfivdajuara c. 1 {PJiet. Grace, n. 
62, ed. Spengel). 


"How/' lie cries to the jurors, " how, men of iron, can 
you have supported them ? " And then, turning in 
triumph to his rival, " What are these, knave ? p^ara 
rj Oavfiara ; metaphors or monsters ? " 1 When a poet, 
a painter or a musician thus scrutinises a brother 
artist's work, the modern world is not surprised. But 
a modern advocate or statesman would not expect to 
make a favourable impression by exposing in detail 
the stylistic shortcomings of an opponent. 

The external evidence is supplied by what we n. Exttr- 
know of the orators, of their hearers and of their dence. 
critics. Already, before the art of Ehetoric had 1. Training 

, of speakers. 

become an elaborate system, the orators were 
accustomed to prepare themselves for their task by 
laborious training, first in composition, then in de- 
livery. They make no secret of this. They are not 
ashamed of it. On the contrary, they avow it and 
insist upon it. Demosthenes would never speak 
extemporarily when he could help it ; he was unwill- 
ing to put his faculty at the mercy of fortune. 2 
" Great is the labour of oratory," says Cicero, " as is 
its field, its dignity and its reward." Nor were the 2. A PP re- 

. 1 . ciation 

audiences less exacting than the speakers were pains- shown by 

• 1 hearers. 

taking. The hearers were attentive, not merely to 
the general drift or to the total effect, but to the 

1 Aesch. In Ctes. §§ 166 f. [Plut.] Vitt. X. OratL, Bern. § 69. 

2 ewl ti>xv Troisier dcu ttjv dvvapuv, To the reproach, on del cfk€tttolto, he 
Plut. Demosth. c. 9 : who observes answered : — alcrxwoi/uirju yap au el 
that this was certainly not from ttjXikoOtcx} drj/iy av/aj3ov\evoju avro- 
want of nerve, since, in the opinion crxecnd^oi/xi. The compiler naively 
of many contemporaries, Demos- adds, rovs 5e irXeivrovs \6yovs elirev 
thenes showed more roX/ma and Odpaos avroaxediaaas, ed rrpbs avrb -rrecpvKibs, 
when he spoke without premedi- — a fact perfectly consistent with 
tation. His habitual reluctance to laborious preparation for all grave 
do so is, however, well attested. occasions. 

See Plut. 1. c. c. 8, and the story in 



3. Pamph- 
lets in the 

4. Collec- 
tions of 

particular elegance. Isocrates speaks of ".the anti- 
theses, the symmetrical clauses and other figures which 
lend brilliancy to oratorical displays, compelling the 
listeners to give clamorous applause." 1 Sentences, 
not especially striking or important in relation to the 
ideas which they convey, are praised by the ancient 
critics for their artistic excellence. 2 Further, when 
an orator, or a master of oratorical prose, wished to 
publish what we should now call a pamphlet, the 
form which he chose for it, as most likely to be effect- 
ive, was that, not of an essay, but of a speech pur- 
porting to be delivered in certain circumstances which 
he imagined. Such are the Archidamus, the Areopa- 
giticus, and the Symmachicus of Isocrates in the 
Deliberative form, and his speech On the Antidosis in 
the Forensic. Such again is the famous Second 
Philippic of Cicero. Then we know that orators 
compiled, for their own use, collections of exordia or 
of commonplaces, to be used as occasion might serve. 
Such was that volmnen prooemiorum of Cicero's which 
betrayed him into a mistake which he has chronicled. 
He had sent Atticus his treatise " De Gloria" with 
the wrong exordium prefixed to it — one, namely, 
which he had already prefixed to the Third Book of 
the Academics. On discovering his mistake, he sends 

1 Isocr. Panatli, (Or. xn.) §2. 

- E.g. Cic. in Vcrr. Act. n. Lib. 
v. c. xxxiii, Stetit soleatus praetor 
populi Eomani cum pallio purpureo 
tunicaque talari, muliercula nixus, in 
litore : praised by Quint, vin. 3 § 64 
for ivdpyeia, artistic vividness: (not, 
as Brougham says in alluding to it, 
Dissert, on the Eloquence of the 
Ancients, p. 42, for "fine and digni- 

fied composition"). — Cic. Orator, c. 63 
§ 214, speaking of the rhythmical 
effect of the dichoreus, _^_^, at the 
end of a sentence, quotes from the 
tribune Carbo, Pair is dictum sapiens 
temeritas filii comprobavit : and adds, 
— "The applause drawn from the 
meeting by this dichoreus was posi- 
tively astonishing." 


Atticus a new exordium, begging him to " cut out the 
other, and substitute this. 77 1 Lastly, the ancient 5. Ancient 
critics habitually compare the pains needful to pro- I'LTom-'' 
duce a good speech with the pains needful to produce sTmptire 
a good statue or picture. When Plato wishes to in g . aui " 
describe the finished smoothness of Lysias, he borrows 
his image from the sculptor, and says a7roT€r6pvevrat. 
Theon says : — " Even as for him who would be a 
painter, it is unavailing to observe the works of Apelles 
and Protogenes and Antiphilus, unless he tries to 
paint with his own hand, so for him who would 
become a speaker there is no help in the speeches of 
the ancients, or in the copiousness of their thoughts, 
or in the purity of their diction, or in their harmoni- 
ous composition, no, nor in lectures upon elegance, 
unless he disciplines himself by ivriting from day to 
day. 772 Lucilius, from whom Cicero borrows the 
simile, compares the phrases, lexeis, each fitted with 
nicety to its setting in a finished sentence, with the 
pieces, tesserulae, laid in a mosaic. 3 But among the 
passages, and they are innumerable, which express 
this view there is one in Dionysius that can never be 
too attentively considered by those who wish to under- 

1 Cic. ad Att. xvi. 6 § 4, quoted 3 Lucilius ap. Cic. De Omtore in. 
by Brougham, Dissert, p. 36. As § 171 : 

to the "TrpooL/xLa of Demosthenes" Quam lepide lexeis compostac/ id 

there noticed, it is now well known tesserulae omnes 

that they were not drawn up by artepavimento atque embhmate ver- 

Demosthenes. The scholastic com- miculato. 

piler, whoever he was, took some of The satirist was mocking T. Albu- 

them from Demosthenes, some from cius, who wished himself to be 

other orators, and probably wrote thought "plane Graecus " (Cic. Uc 

some himself : Schafer, Dem. u. seine Fin. I. 1 § 8), and was alluding espe- 

Zcit, in. App. p. 129. daily to the Isocratics. No one, 

2 Theon, irpoyv/jLvdafiara c. 1 (Rkct. certainly, could say of Lucilius what 
Grace. I. p. 62 ed. Spengel). he said of Albucius. 


Dionysius stand the real nature of ancient, and especially of 

ire pi avvde- 

aeus, c. 25. Attic, oratory. He is explaining and defending — 
partly with a polemical purpose at which we shall 
have to glance by and by — that minute and incessant 
diligence which Demosthenes devoted to the perfect- 
ing of his orations. It is not strange, says the critic, 
" if a man who has won more glory for eloquence than 
any of those that were renowned before him, who is 
shaping works for all the future, who is offering him- 
self to the scrutiny of all -testing Envy and Time, 
adopts no thought, no word, at random, but takes 
much care of both things, the arrangement of his 
ideas and the OTaeiousness of his language : seeing 
too, that the men of that day produced discourses 
which resembled no common scribblings, but rather 
were like to carved and chiselled forms, — I mean 
Isocrates and Plato, the Sophists. For Isocrates spent 
on the Panegyriciis, to take the lowest traditional 
estimate, ten years ; and Plato ceased not to smooth 
the locks, and adjust the tresses, or vary the braids, 
of his comely creations, even till he w r as eighty 
years old. 1 All lovers of literature are familiar, I 
suppose, with the stories of Plato's industry, especially 
the story about the tablet which, they Sciy, was found 
after his death, with the first words of the Republic 
— Kare^rjv %0h eh Hetpaia fiera T\av/coovo$ rod 'Apccr- 
tcdvos — arranged in several different orders. What 
wonder, then, if Demosthenes also took pains to 
achieve euphony and harmony, and to avoid employ- 

1 The language here — tous iavrod be the general term ; while (3o<TTpv- 

diaXoyovs KTevi'Swv koX fioGTpvxi^wv /ecu X^ wv refers to the addition, and 

iravra rpoirov dvcnrXtKuv — is not, per- avair\eKuv to the retrenchment, of 

haps, mere tautology. Krevifyv may luxuriance. 


ing a single word, or a single thought, which he had 
not weighed ? It seems to me far more natural that 
a mem engaged in composing political discourses, 
imperishable memorials of his power, should neglect 
not even the smallest detail, than that the generation 
of painters and sculptors, ivho are darkly shaving 
forth their manual tact and toil in a corruptible 
material, shoidd exhaust the refinements of their art 
on the veins, on the feathers, on the down of the Up 
and the like niceties" 1 Eepeating this passage, 
slightly altered, in the essay on Demosthenes, Dionysius 
acids that we might indeed marvel if, while sculptors 
and painters are thus conscientious, " the artist in 
civil eloquence (ttoXltikos SyfiLovpyos) neglected the 
smallest aids to speaking well — if indeed these be the 
smallest" 2 

It has already been observed that this feeling This 


ception is 

about speaking is originally Greek ; and it is worth originally 
while to consider how it arose. That artistic sense 
which distinguished the Greeks above all races that 
the world has known was concentrated, in the happy its basis— 

n , , . , 1 the ideal i- 

pause oi development to which we owe their supreme sation of 
works, on the idealisation of man. Now, X0709, 
speech, was recognised by the Greeks as the distinct- 
ive attribute of man. 3 It was necessary, therefore, 
that, at this stage, they should require in speech a 
clear-cut and typical beauty analogous to that of the 

1 Dionys. ire pi crvvdeaews ovofidrojv, ry ado/jLan i±£v al<rxP° J/ W ovuaadat 

c. 25. fiorjdelv eavrco, \6yu> 5' ovk aiaxpov' o 

, _ , _ _ _ K „ uaXXou tdiov €<jtlv dv6pdo7rov ttjs tov 

" Id. Be Demosth, c. 51. , „ 7 , -, n . , 

awfjLaros XP eta5 > Jtihct. I. 1. On \070s 

3 Aristotle uses this consideration as the distinction of man, see a 

to enforce the "defensive" use of splendid passage in Isocrates, A nticl. 

Rhetoric: — irpbs 5e tovtols aroirov el (Or. xv.) §§ 252-257. 



motives : 
(1) the oral 
of poetry ; 

(2) The 
civil im- 
portance of 
speech ; 

(3) Com- 

istics of 

idealised human form. This was the central and 
primary motive, relatively to which all others were 
subsidiary or accidental. But, of these secondary 
motives, two at least demand a passing notice. First, 
the oral tradition of poetry and the habit of listening 
to poetical recitation furnished an analogy which was 
present to people's minds when they saw a man get 
up to make a set speech ; they expected his words to 
have something like the coherence, something like 
the plastic outline, something even like the music of 
the verses which they were wont to hear flow from 
the lips of his counterpart, the rhapsode. Secondly, 
in the Greek cities, and especially at Athens, public 
speaking had, by 450 B.C., become so enormously 
important, opened so much to ambition, constituted a 
safeguard so essential for security of property and 
person, that not only was there the most various 
inducement to cultivate it, but it was positively 
dangerous to neglect it. Further, since in a law-court 
it was unavailing for the citizen that he could speak 
well unless the judges thought that he spoke better 
than his opponent, the art of persuasion was studied 
with a competitive zeal which wrought together with, 
the whole bent of the Greek genius in securing atten- 
tion to detail. 

It will now be useful to look at some of the broad 
characteristics of modern oratory and of the modern 
feeling towards it ; but only in so far as these will 
help our present purpose — namely, to elucidate the 
nature of ancient oratory. The first thing that 
strikes one is how completely modern life has 
redressed the complaint made by the earliest philo- 


sophical theorist of rhetoric. Aristotle opens his Aristotle on 

"trip 1"1itpp 

treatise with the observation that, whereas there are instru- 
three instruments of rhetorical persuasion — the ethical, Rhetorical 
the pathetic and the logical — his predecessors have 
paid by far the most attention to the second, and 
have almost totally neglected the third, though this 
third is incomparably the most important, — indeed, 
the only one of the three which is truly scientific. 
The logical proof is the very body, crcofjua, of rhetorical 
persuasion, — everything else, appeal to feeling, attract- 
ive portrayal of character, and so forth, is, from the 
scientific point of view, only nrpoaOrjfCT], appendage. , 
This is essentially the modern, especially the modern His esti- 
Teutonic, theory of oratory, and the modern practice that of the 
is in harmony with it. The broadest characteristic of woria. 
modern oratory, as compared with ancient, is the pre- Modem 

• it t i • Oratory 

dominance of a sustained appeal to the understanding, puts the 
Hume, with general truth, declares the attributes of Urns first. 
Greek oratory to be " rapid harmony, exactly adjusted 
to the sense/' " vehement reasoning, without any 
appearance of art," " disdain, anger, boldness, free- 
dom, involved in a continual stream of argument " x — a 
description, it must be observed, which should at all 
events be limited to the deliberative and forensic 
orators contemporary with Demosthenes. Brougham, 
however, states the case both more accurately and in 
terms of wider application, when he observes that in 
ancient oratory there are scarcely any long chains of 
elaborate reasoning ; what was wanted to move, to 
rouse, and to please the hearers, was rather a copious 
stream of plain, intelligible observations upon their 

1 Essay xii., Of Eloquence. 


interests, appeals to their feelings, reminiscences from 
the history, especially the recent history, of their city, 
expositions of the evils to be apprehended from 
inaction or from impolicy, vindications of the orator's 
own conduct, demonstrations of the folly which dis- 
obeys, or of the malice which assails him. 1 Aristotle 
himself, it may be observed, the very champion of the 
enthymeme, is the strongest witness to the truth of 
this. He impresses upon the student of Rhetoric that 
a speaker must ever remember that he is addressing 
the vulgar ; he must not expect them to be capable 
of a far-reaching ratiocination, he must not string 
syllogism to syllogism, he must administer his logic 
temperately and discreetly. 2 Now, in contrast with 
this, long and elaborate chains of reasoning, or exposi- 
tions of complicated facts, have been the very essence 
of the great efforts and triumphs of modern oratory ; 
the imagery and the pathos heighten the effect, but 
would go only a very little way if the understandings 
of the hearers had not, in the first place, been con- 
vinced. We are here a^ain reminded of the basis on 
Themodern which ancient oratory rested. The modern speaker 

SD6cllvCr ll&S 

no distinct comes before his audience with no a priori claim to 
as Til artist, be regarded as an artist whose display of his art may 

be commendable and interesting in itself. Cicero's 
The an- speech for Archias, which is exquisitely composed, but 
strict about of which not more than one-sixth is to the purpose, or 
refevance. his speech for Publius Sextus, in which the relevant 

part bears a yet smaller proportion to the whole, could 

1 Dissertation on the Eloquence of (6 yap KpLrris viroKeirai elvai cltt\ovs, 
the Ancients, pp. 48, 58. k.t.X.) : n. 22 §§ 2 ff., in. 17 § 6, 

- See {e.g.) Met. i. 2 §§ 12, 13 etc. 


not have been delivered in a British court of justice. 1 
There is usually, however, an important difference, 
which will be noticed by and by, between the nature 
of Greek and that of Eoman irrelevance. On the 
other hand, the modern exaction of consecutive and 
intelligible reasoning becomes, of course, less severe 
the more nearly the discourse approaches to the nature 
of a display. Still, this logical vigilance, with a com- 
parative indifference to form, is, on the whole, the 
first great characteristic of modern oratory, and has, 
of course, become more pronounced since the system 
of reporting for the Press has been perfected, as it is influence or 

° m newspaper 

now, in many cases, far more important for the reporting. 
speaker to convince readers than to fascinate hearers. 
The characteristic which comes next in degree of sig- 1 — 
nificance for our present object is the habitual pre- 
sumption that the speech is extemporary. Even Modem 

. feeling that 

where there has been the most laborious preparation, a great 

• • speecli 

even where the fact of such preparation is notorious, must be 

-i .... . extempo- 

lt is generally ielt to be essential to impressiveness rary. 
that the fact of verbal premeditation should be kept 
out of sight, and on the part of the hearers it is con- 
sidered more courteous to ignore it. A certain ridi- 
cule attaches to a speech which, not having been 
delivered, is published, — the sense of something 
ludicrous arising partly from the feeling, "What an 
absurd disappointment," but also from the feeling, 
" Here are the bursts which would have electrified the 

i'ii in i iti Sources of 

audience. One thing which has helped to establish tinsfeei- 
this feeling is the frequent failure of those who have failures o/ 
attempted verbal premeditation ; a failure probably t ionT 

1 Brougham, I. c. p. 46. 



2. The 
basis of 

due less often to defective memory or nerve than to 
neglect of a department in which the ancient orators 
were most diligent, and in which, moreover, they 
were greatly assisted by the plastic forms among 
which they lived, by the share of musical training 
which they ordinarily possessed, and by the draping 
of the himation or the toga, — delivery, in respect both 
of voice and of action. When a premeditated speech 
is rendered lifeless or ludicrous by the manner in 
which it is pronounced, the modern mind at once 
recurs to its prejudice against Rhetoric — that is, 
against the Rhetoric of the later schools — and a con- 
tempt is generated for those who deign to labour 
beforehand on words that should come straight from 
the heart. There is, however, a much deeper cause 
than this for the popular modern notion that the 
greatest oratory must be extemporary, and it is one 
which, for the modern world, is analogous to the 
origin of the Greek requirement that speech should 
be artistic. This cause is the Hebraic basis of educa- 
tion in modern Christendom, especially in those coun- 
tries which have been most influenced by the Refor- 
mation. It becomes a prepossession that the true 
adviser, the true warner, in all the gravest situations, 
on all the most momentous subjects, is one to whom 
it will in that hour be given what he shall speak, and 
whose inspiration, when it is loftiest, must be com- 
municated to him at the moment by a Power external 
to himself. The ancient world compared the orator 
with the poet. The modern world compares the 
orator with the prophet. 

It is true, indeed, that the ancient theory has 


often been partially applied in modern times, some- Modem ap- 

, proxima- 

times with great industry and with much success ; tions to the 
but modern conditions place necessary limits to the Ancient 
application, and the great difference is this: — The 
ancients required the speech to be an artistic whole ; 
the modern orator who composes, or verbally pre- 
meditates, trusts chiefly, as a rule, to particular pass- 
ages and is less solicitous for a total symmetry. 
Debate, in our sense, is a modern institution ; its influence 

of Debate. 

unforeseen exigencies claim a large margin in the most 
careful premeditation ; and hence, in the principal 
field of oratory, an insurmountable barrier is at once 
placed to any real assimilation between the ancient 
and the modern modes. Just so much the more, if 
only for contrast, is it interesting to contemplate 
those modern orators who have approximated to the 
classical theory in such measure as their genius and 
their opportunities allowed. In an inquiry of the 
present scope, it might be presumptuous to select 
living illustrations of the Pulpit, the Senate, or the 
Bar. It would not, indeed, be needful to go far back ; 
but it may be better, for our purpose, to seek 
examples where the natural partialities of a recent 
memory no longer refract the steady rays of fame. 
In respect of finished rhetorical prose, which is not, Finished 
either in the ancient or in the modern sense, great proseT^ 
oratory, but which bears to it the same kind of 
relation that the Panegyricus of Isocrates bears to 
the speech On the Crown, no one, perhaps, has 
excelled Canning. The well-known passage of his canning's 

-i-^i i • ^ >ii Plymouth 

speech at Plymouth in 1823 will serve as an speech. 
illustration : — 

vol. i / 


" The resources created by peace are means of war. In 
cherishing those resources, we but accumulate those means. 
Our present repose is no more a proof of inability to act, 
than the state of inertness and inactivity in which I see 
those mighty masses that float in the waters above your 
town is a proof that they are devoid of strength and 
incapable of being fitted out for action. You well know, 
gentlemen, how soon one of those stupendous masses now 
reposing on their shadows in perfect stillness — how soon, 
upon any call of patriotism or of necessity, it would assume 
the likeness of an animated thing, instinct with life and 
motion — how soon would it ruffle, as it were, its swelling 
plumage — how quickly it would put forth all its beauty and 
its bravery, collect its scattered elements of strength, and 
awaken its dormant thunder. Such as is one of those 
magnificent machines when springing from inaction into 
a display of its might— such is England herself, while, 
apparently passive and motionless, she silently concentrates 
the power to be put forth on an adequate occasion." 

His ana- The ancient parallel for this is such a passage 


isocrates. as that in the Panegyricus, describing the irresist- 
ible and awe-inspiring might in which the Pan- 
hellenic invasion will move through Asia — Oecopia 

Union of fidWov rj <tt pare la irpocreoiicd)?} But a nearer resem- 


finish with blance to the classical union of rhythmical finish 
with living passion is afforded, in deliberative oratory, 
by Grattan, in forensic, by Erskine. Take the per- 

Grattan. oration of Grattan's speech in the Irish Parliament on 
the Declaration of Irish Eights : 2 — 

" Do not suffer the arrogance of England to imagine a 

O o o 

surviving hope in the fears of Ireland ; do not send the 
people to their own resolves for liberty, passing by the 

1 Isocr. Or. iv. § 182. 2 Speeches, Vol. I. pp. 52 f. 


tribunals of justice and the high court of Parliament ; 
neither imagine that, by any formation of apology, you can 
palliate such a commission to your hearts, still less to your 
children, who will sting you with their curses in your graves, 
for having interposed between them and their Maker, 
robbing them of an immense occasion, and losing an oppor- 
tunity which you did not create and never can restore. 

" Hereafter, when these things shall be history, your age 
of thraldom and poverty, your sudden resurrection, com- 
mercial redress, and miraculous armament, shall the historian 
stop at liberty, and observe— that here the principal men 
among us fell into mimic trances of gratitude ; that they 
were awed by a weak ministry, and bribed by an empty 
treasury; and, when liberty was within their grasp, and 
the temple opened her folding doors, and the arms of the 
people clanged, and the zeal of the nation urged and 
encouraged them on, — that they fell down and were prosti- 
tuted at the threshold. 

" I might, as a constituent, come to your bar and demand 
my liberty, — I do call upon you, by the laws of the land 
and their violation, by the instruction of eighteen counties, 
by the arms, inspiration, and providence of the present 
moment, tell us the rule by which we shall go — assert the 
law of Ireland — declare the liberty of the land. 

" I will not be answered by a public lie in the shape of 
an amendment ; neither, speaking for the subject's freedom, 
am I to hear of faction. I wish for nothing but to breathe, 
in this our island, in common with my fellow-subjects, the 
air of liberty. I have no ambition, unless it be the ambition 
to break your chain and contemplate your glory. I never 
will be satisfied so long as the meanest cottager in Ireland 
has a link of the British chain clanking to his rags ; he may 
be naked, he shall not be in iron ; and I do see the time is 
at hand, the spirit is gone forth, the declaration is planted : 
and though great men should apostatise, yet the cause will 


live ; and though the public speaker should die, yet the 
immortal fire shall outlast the organ which conveyed it, and 
the breath of liberty, like the word of the holy man, will 
not die with the prophet, but survive him." 

Erskine. Erskine's defence of Stockdale, the publisher of a 

pamphlet in defence of Warren Hastings, containing 
certain reflections on the Managers which the House 
of Commons pronounced libellous, contains a passage 
of which the ingenuity, no less than the finished art. 
recalls the best efforts of ancient forensic oratory ; 
though this ingenuity cannot be fully appreciated 
without the context. At first, Erskine studiously 
keeps his defence of Stockdale separate from his 
defence of Hastings ; then he gradually suggests that 
Hastings is entitled to indulgence on account (1) of 
his instructions, (2) of his situation, (3) of English 
and European policy abroad, (4) of the depravity to 
which, universally, men are liable who have vast 
power over a subject race, — and the last topic is 
illustrated thus : — 

" Gentlemen, I think that I can observe that you are 
touched by this way of considering the subject ; and I can 
account for it. I have not been considering it through the 
cold medium of books, but have been speaking of man and 
his nature, and of human dominion, from what I have seen 
of them myself among reluctant nations submitting to our 
authority. I know what they feel, and how such feelings 
can alone be repressed. I have heard them in my youth 
from a naked savage, in the indignant character of a prince 
surrounded by his subjects, addressing the governor of a 
British colony, holding a bundle of sticks in his hand as the 
notes of his unlettered eloquence ; ( Who is it,' said the 


jealous ruler over the desert encroached upon by the rest- 
less foot of English adventure- — ■' who is it that causes this 
river to rise in the high mountains and to empty itself into 
the ocean ? Who is it that causes to blow the loud winds 
of winter, and that calms them again in summer ? Who is 
it that rears up the shade of those lofty forests, and blasts 
them with the quick lightning at his pleasure ? The same 
Being who gave to you a country on the other side of the 
waters, and gave ours to us ; and by this title we will defend 
it ! ' said the warrior, throwing down his tomahawk on the 
ground, and raising the war-sound of his nation. These are 
the feelings of subjugated men all round the globe ; and, 
depend upon it, nothing but fear will control where it is 
vain to look for affection." 2 

But no speaker, probably, of modern times has Burke 
come nearer to the classical type than Burke ; and 
this because his reasonings, his passion, his imagery, 
are sustained by a consummate and unfailing beauty 
of language. The passage in which he describes the 
descent of Hyder Ali upon the Carnatic is supposed 
to owe the suggestion of its great image, not to 
Demosthenes, but to Livy's picture of Fabius hover- 
ing over Hannibal ; the whole passage is infinitely 
more Eoman, more Verrine, if the phrase may be 
permitted, than Greek ; but it is anything rather 
than diffuse : — 

" Having terminated his disputes with every enemy and 
every rival, who buried their mutual animosities in their 
common detestation against the creditors of the Nabob of 
Arcot, he drew from every quarter whatever a savage ferocity 

1 From a longer extract given by in the volume of his " Ehetorical and 
Brougham in his Essay on Erskine, Literary Dissertations and Addresses," 
reprinted from the Edinburgh Review p. 225. 


could add to his new rudiments in the arts of destruction ; 
and compounding all the materials of fury, havoc, and 
desolation into one black cloud, he hung for a while on the 
declivity of the mountains. Whilst the authors of all these 
evils were idly and stupidly gazing on this menacing meteor, 
which darkened all their horizon, it suddenly burst, and 
poured down the whole of its contents upon the plains of 
the Carnatic. Then ensued a scene of woe, the like of which 
no eye had seen, no heart conceived, and which no tongue 
can adequately tell. All the horrors of war before known 
or heard of were mercy to that new havoc. A storm of 
universal fire blasted every field, consumed every house, 
destroyed every temple. The miserable inhabitants, flying 
from their flaming villages, in part were slaughtered ; others, 
without regard to sex, to age, to the respect of rank, or 
sacredness of function, fathers torn from children, husbands 
from wives, enveloped in a whirlwind of cavalry, and amidst 
the goading spears of drivers and the trampling of pursuing 
horses, were swept into captivity in an unknown and hostile 
land. Those who were able to evade this tempest fled to 
the walled cities. But, escaping from fire, sword and exile, 
they fell into the jaws of famine. For months together 
these creatures of sufferance, whose very excess and luxury 
in their most plenteous days had fallen short of the allow- 
ance of our austerest fasts, silent, patient, resigned, without 
sedition or disturbance, almost without complaint, perished 
by a hundred a day in the streets of Madras or on the glacis 
of Tangore, and expired of famine in the granary of India." 

Brougham Brougham 1 contrasts this passage with that in 

compared which Demosthenes says that a danger "went by 

mosthenes. like a cloud/' with that where he says, " If the 

Tliebans had not joined us, all this trouble would 

have rushed like a mountain-torrent on the city," and 

1 In his Inaugural Discourse before the University of Glasgow. 


with that where he asks, " If the thunderbolt which 
has fallen has overpowered, not us alone, but all the 
Greeks, what is to be clone ? " J Brougham contends 
that Burke has marred the sublimity of the "black 
cloud " and " the whirlwind of cavalry " by developing 
and amplifying both. This, surely, is to confound 
the plastic with the picturesque — a point which will 
presently claim our attention. Demosthenes is a 
sculptor, Burke a painter. 

It might, however, have been anticipated that Modern 

° x Eloquence 

modern oratory would have most resembled the of the 

. . Pulpit. 

ancient in that branch where the conditions are 
most nearly similar. If Isocrates could have foreseen — - 
the splendid, the unique opportunities which in later 
ages would be enjoyed by the Christian preacher, 
what expectations would he not have formed, not 
merely of the heights that would be attained — past 
and living instances remind us that, in this respect, 
no estimate could well have been too sanguine — but 
of the average abundance in which compositions of 
merit would be produced ! It will, of course, be 
recollected that no quality is here in question ex- 
cept that of an eloquence which, regarded as literary 
prose, has the finish which deserves to be called 
artistic. If the test, thus defined, be applied, it 
will be found to afford a striking confirmation of 
what has already been observed in regard to the 
effect upon oratory of that especially Protestant con- 
ception according to which the orator's function is 
prophetic. In the combination of argumentative 
power with lofty earnestness and with eloquence of 

1 Dem. dc Corona § 188 (vecpos), § 153 (xew&ppovs), § 194 (cr/a?7rr6s). 


the Hebraic type, 1 none have surpassed, or perhaps 
equalled, those divines whose discourses are among 
the chief glories of the English language. In respect, 
however, of complete artistic form, of classical finish, 
a nearer resemblance to the antique has been pre- 
sented by the great preachers of Catholic France. 2 
Modem The most memorable triumphs of modern oratory 

Oratory — 

its greatest are connected with the tradition of thrills, of electrical 

triumphs . 

won by shocks, given to the hearers at the moment by bursts 

sudden i • i 

bursts. which were extemporary, not necessarily as regards 
the thought, but necessarily as regards the form. It 
was for such bursts that the eloquence of the elder 
Pitt was famous ; that of Mirabeau, and of Patrick 
Henry, owed its highest renown to the same cause. 
Shell's retort, in the debate on the Irish Municipal 
Bill in 1837, to Lord Lyndhurst's description of 
the Irish (in a phrase borrowed from O'Connell), as 
" aliens in blood, language and religion," was of this 
kind. 3 Erskine, in his defence of Lord George 
Gordon, produced an astonishing effect by a pro- 
testation, — which would have been violent if it had 
not been solemn, — of personal belief in his client's 
innocence ; a daring transgression of the advocate's 
province which was paralleled, with some momentary 
success, in a celebrated criminal case about twenty 

1 Chatham prescribed a study of compared with Lycurgus : Massillon, 
Barrow as the best foundation of a Voltaire's favourite, with his severity, 
good style in speaking. rapidity and lofty fervour, was prob- 

2 In his Essay on ' ' Pulpit Elo- ably the most Demosthenic, 
quence " Brougham seems hardly to 3 It is quoted in the excellent 
do justice to Bossuet — the more article on " The British Parliament; 
florid Isocrates of the group. Bour- its History and Eloquence," Quar- 
daloue, with his abundant resource, terly Review of April 1872, No. 
his temperate pathos and his fre- cxxxii. p. 480. 

quent harshness, may perhaps be 


years ago. Now these sudden bursts, and the shock i^ 
or the transport which they may cause, were forbidden 
to ancient oratory by the principal law of its being. 
In nothing is the contrast more striking than in this — 
that the greatest oratorical reputations of the ancient 
world were chiefly made, and those of the modern 
world have sometimes been endangered, by pre- 
pared works of art. Pericles and Hypereides were 
renowned for no efforts of their eloquence more than 
for their funeral orations. Fox's carefully composed 
speech in honour of the Duke of Bedford, Chatham's 
elaborate eulogy of Wolfe, were accounted among 
the least happy of their respective performances. 
There is, however, at least one instrument of sudden Use of 

rv> i«i/-n i -n • • -i t» i • quotation. 

effect which Greek oratory and British Parliamentary 

oratory once had in common, but which the latter has 
now almost abandoned — poetical quotation. A quota- 
tion may, of course, be highly effective even for 
those to whom it is new. But the genuine oratorical 
force of quotation depends on the hearers knowing 
the context, having previous associations with the 
passage, and thus feeling the whole felicity of the 
application as, at the instant, it is flashed upon the 
mind. In this respect, the opportunities of the Greek 
orator were perfect. His hearers were universally and 
thoroughly familiar with the great poets. When 
Aeschines applies the lines from Hesiod to Demo- 
sthenes, it is as if Digby, addressing Puritans, had 
attempted to sum up Strafford in a verse of Isaiah. 
In the days when all educated Englishmen knew a 
good deal of Virgil and Horace, and something of the 
best English poets, quotation w T as not merely a keen, 



istics of 
Greek ora- 

ull Greek 
art lias the 

but, in skilful hands, a really powerful weapon of 
parliamentary debate ; and its almost total disuse, 
however unavoidable, is perhaps a more serious 
deduction than is generally perceived from the rather 
slender resources of modern English oratory for creat- 
ing a glow. Pitt's speech on the Slave Trade con- 
cluded with the expression of this hope — that " Africa, 
though last of all the quarters of the globe, shall 
enjoy at length, in the evening of her days, those 
blessings which have descended so plentifully upon us 
in a much earlier period of the world " : the first 
beams of the rising sun were just entering the 
windows of the House, and he looked upward as he 

said — 

Nos primus equis Oriens afflavit anhelis ; 

Illic sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper. 

Hitherto we have been seeking to bring into 
relief, against the modern conception, that character 
which is common to Greek and to Roman' oratory. 
But Greek oratory, as compared with Roman, has 
a stamp of its own. It is separated from the Roman, 
not, indeed, by so wide an interval, yet by a line 
as firm as that which separates both from the 

That character which, with special modifications, 
belongs to every artistic creation of the Greek mind, 
whether this be a statue, a temple, a poem, a speech, 
or an individual's conception of his own place in life, 
is usually, and rightly, called the plastic. When it 
is desired to describe the primary artistic aspect of 
Greek Tragedy, this is commonly and justly done by 
a comparison with Sculpture. But it is certain that 


comparatively few understand the real meaning of Popular 

n . misconcep- 

" plastic, "sculpturesque, m these relations; and that tion of 

-. . -i -i what is 

to a vast majority of even cultivated persons, the meant by 
statement of this affinity conveys an altogether 
erroneous notion. The reason of this is that the 
place held in antiquity by Sculpture is now held 
jointly by Painting, Music and certain forms of 
Poetry ; that the modern mind instinctively refers 
the sculptural to the standard of the picturesque ; 
and that, consequently, while the positive and essen- 
tial characteristics of Sculpture are lost sight of, its 
negative qualities, relatively to Painting, become 
most prominent. These are, the absence of colour 
and the exclusion of tumultuous or complex action. 
Hence to the popular modern conception of Sculpture 
there usually attaches the notion of coldness and of 
rigidity. When people are told that Greek Tragedy 
(for example) is sculpturesque, they form this idea of 
it — that it has grandeur, but that it is cold and 
rather stiff. Then, if they are convinced that some- 
how the Greeks really were a race with the very 
highest genius for art, they begin to feel a secret 
wish that this alleged analogy between Greek Tragedy 
and sculpture might turn out to be a mistake. Here 
is an opportunity. The ingenious step in and say, 
" It is a mistake. It is pedantry and sentiment. For a result ot 
our part, we have always felt that feophocles was conception. 
frigid, and that Euripides, with his pathetic humanity, 
his tender women, his heroes who are not ashamed to 
display their emotions, was the better artist ; now, 
dismiss the prepossessions created by students who are 
in no sympathy with nature or men, look at the facts 


danger to 
the whole 
study of the 

of Greek 
thought in 
the best 
days of 
Greek art ; 

with the 
Oriental ; 

as they are, deign to take homely views, and say, Is 
it not so ? " 

The question at issue here happens to be vital to 
the immediate subject of these pages, viz. the de- 
velopment, through Attic oratory, of Attic prose. It 
is, however, just as vital for every other department 
whatsoever in the study of ancient art, literature 
and thought, for it involves nothing less than our 
fundamental conception of the antique. Unless that 
conception is true, everything will be seen in a dis- 
torted light, and the best things that the ancient 
world has to teach will be neglected for the second 

Let us take a moment of the period when, as a 
matter of fact, the creative activity of Greek art 
was abundant — say 440 B.C. — and consider what, at 
that moment, was the principal characteristic of 
Greek reflection. 1 This will be best understood by 
a comparison with two other characters of thought : 
that which has belonged, though in a multitude of 
special shapes, to the East, and that of mediaeval 
Europe. Oriental thought, as interpreted by Oriental 
art, fails to define humanity or to give a clear-cut 
form to any material which the senses offer to it. 
Life is conceived only generally, as pervading men, 
animals and vegetables, but the distinctive attributes 
of human life, physical or spiritual, are not pondered 
or appreciated. The human form, the human soul, 

1 The essay on Winckelmann, in 
Mr. W. H. Pater's " Studies in the 
History of the Renaissance," is the 
most perfect interpretation of the 
Greek spirit in art that I know. If 

the restatement of some of its points 
should gain for it fresh students, 
such a separation of its teaching 
from its beauty may deserve to be 
form ven. 


are not, to this Eastern thought, the objects of an 
absorbing and analysing contemplation. To European and with 
medievalism, they are so ; but the body is regarded ^ai. 
as the prison and the shame of the soul ; and mediaeval 
art expresses the burning eagerness of the soul to 
escape from this prison to a higher communion. The 
three marks of mediaeval art are individualism, desire, 
and ecstasy : individualism, since the artist is strug- 
gling to interpret a personal intensity, and goes to 
grotesqueness in the effort ; desire, since the perpetual 
longing; of the Church on earth for her Master is the 
type of the artist's passion ; ecstasy, since this pas- 
sion demands the surrender of reason and has its 
climax in the adoration of a mystery revealed. 1 Be- 
tween the Oriental and the Mediaeval art stands the 
Greek. Greek art defines humanity, the body and 
the soul of man. But it has not reached the mediaeval 
point ; it has not learned to feel that the body is the 
prison and the shame of the soul. Bather, it regards 
the soul as reflecting its own divinity upon the body. 
" What a piece of work is man ! how noble in reason ! 
how infinite in faculty ! in form and moving how 
express and admirable ! in action how like an angel ! 
in apprehension how like a god ! the beauty of the 
world ! the paragon of animals ! " If Hamlet could 
have stopped there, he would have been a Greek ; 
but he could not, he was sick with a modern 
distemper, abandonment to the brooding thought 
that sapped his will. 2 The Greek of the clays when 

1 I have not at hand an article on traits of medievalism were very finely 

(I think) Mr. Rossetti's poems, which delineated. 

appeared some years ago in the West- 2 Dowden, " Shakspere's Mind and 

minster Review, and in which these Art," p. 47. 


Greek re- 
flection was 
at a happy 
pause : 

and the 

Why Greek 
art became 
rather than 

Series of 
the arts : 

ure : 

Poetry ; 

art was supreme could and did stop there ; he was 
Narcissus, standing on the river-bank, looking into 
the deep, clear waters where the mirror of his image 
shows the soul, too, through the eyes, Narcissus in 
love with the image that he beholds, — but Narcissus 
as yet master of himself, — as yet with a firm foothold 
upon the bank, not as yet possessed by the delirious 
impulse to plunge into the depths. Here, then, was 
the first condition for the possibility of a great art, 
Reflection had taken the right direction, had got far 
enough, but had not got too far; it was a pause. 
But, in order that this pause should be joyous, and 
that the mind should not, from weariness or disap- 
pointment, hasten forward, another thing was neces- 
sary — that men and women should be beautiful. By 
some divine chance, the pause in reflection coincided 
with the physical perfection of a race ; and the result 
was Greek art. 

Why, however, should this art have expressed 
itself in Sculpture rather than, for instance, in Paint- 
ino-? Art gives pleasure by form, by colour, by 
sound, or, as in poetry, by the reminiscence of all 
these combined with the delight of motion. But 
the mind has had a history ; and the very degree in 
which the resources of a particular art are limited or 
ample may give it a special affinity with an earlier 
or a later stage of the mind. Architecture corresponds 
with the phase when man's thoughts about himself 
are still indistinct; the building may hint, but it 
cannot express, the artist's personality : Egyptian art 
has been called a Memnon waiting for the clay. Paint- 
ing, Music and Poetry are the modern and romantic 


arts, with a range of expression adequate to every 

subtlety and intricacy of self-analysis. Between this 

group and Architecture comes Sculpture, the art Sculpture. 

kindred with that phase in the mind's history when 

man has just attained to recognition of himself and 

is observing his own typical characteristics of form 

and spirit with wonder and with joy, but, as yet, 

without the impulse towards analysis. In all the 

greatest sculpture there breathes the un shamed and 

innocent surprise of a child just waked from sleep. 

But this of itself implies renouncement; the limits The limit ot 


of possible expression in Sculpture are severe. If, m scuip- 

. -. tnre not 

then, the Greek was contemplating his own soul as irksome, 

1- 'IT 1111 ^ )U ^ COn " 

well as his own body, why, it might be asked, had genial, to 
he recourse to a medium of interpretation for which 
the spiritual subtleties of painting and poetry are 
impossible? The answer is, — Because he was not 
observing the soul apart from the body, but as one 
with the body in a godlike union ; and because, to 
him, any expression of spiritual subtleties was not 
a gain but a loss, if it was effected at the expense 
of that in which he was absorbed — the contemplation 
of man as man, in his totality, as the paragon of 
animals. Sculpture cannot express a complex or 
refined situation ; but its very limitations on that 
side make it the clearest interpretation of a character 
or a type. The Greek's attention was fixed on the 
typical, unchanging, divine lineaments of man, as he 
stood forth under the blue heaven, his outlines clear 
against the sunlit sea ; and, for the Greek's purpose, 
sculpture was the more fitting just because it elimi- 
nates what is restless or accidental. But he did not 


The best mean sculpture to be cold or rigid ; he did not mean 

is not cold it to be blank or vague ; and assuredly he made it 

nor\ague. ^^ ^ these things. The "Adorante" lifting up 

his hands in praise for victory, the cousinship of 

Love with Death hinted in the Genius of Eternal 

Slumber, — let these works and such as these be 


Mistake of This character of Sculpture belongs also to Greek 

Greek" mg Tragedy. But this is not, as seems sometimes to 

as^le' 7 be imagined, because the Greeks sought to make 

scufpture°: Tragedy like Sculpture. It is because that tendency 

They are of intellect and feeling, for which Sculpture happened 

sister forms 

of one to be a peculiarly apt expression, set its necessary 

stamp equally on everything else that the Greek 

which mind created. In naming this stamp " plastic " we 

"plastic." borrow our term from the arts of modelling ; but to 

conceive the form of Greek Tragedy as derived from 

Sculpture is like conceiving the Greek language to be 

derived from Sanskrit. It is true that, in reference 

Greek to the history of Greek thought, Tragedy is a later 

has an alloy manifestation than Sculpture ; the perfect repose is 

' already troubled, an element of conflict has entered, 

man is in the presence of Nemesis, and the Bpdaavrt 

iraOelv, the law that sin shall entail suffering, is 

but is typi- the theme. But the typical character is not lost ; 

those unchanging attributes which, on the one hnnd, 

bring man near to the gods or, on the other, mark 

his brotherhood with the dust and the limits of his 

mortal destiny, are presented in emphatic, untroubled 

lines ; and, when Retributive Justice has done its 

w r ork, that blitheness out of which the passions rose 

into a storm returns subdued to the graver and 


deeper calm that follows a transcendent contempla- 
tion. All honour to those sublime voices of Titanic 
pain or victory that roll, like dirges or paeans, along 
the spacious music of Aeschylus ; all honour to 
Euripides also, for no one is capable of feeling 
that Sophocles is supreme who does not feel that 
Euripides is admirable. Euripides is a great emo- The true 

. , greatness of 

tional dramatist ; a master oi the picturesque ; the Euripides. 
only Greek, except Aristophanes, who set foot in the 
charmed woodlands of fancy. 1 That special claim, 
however, which has in recent times been made for 
Euripides, and on the strength of which he has by 
some been preferred to his predecessors, involves a 
fallacy which it is important to observe, since what 
is at issue is much more than our judgment on the 
relative merits of two poets : it is the principle of 
appreciation relatively to all the best Greek work in 
every kind. Euripides has been regarded as distinct- Fallacy m- 
ively the human. Now if by this were meant only calling 
that he is great in dramatising the accidents of life. ti^most 
in portraying the more obvious phenomena of oftheGxeek 
character, in exciting compassion for such troubles, ia s ecian& - 
or sympathy with such joys, as come home to us all, 
in establishing between the poet and the spectator 
not merely a vivid intelligence but something like a 
personal friendship, then the epithet would be per- 

1 "An admirer of Aeschylus or Calderon and Shakspere and Fletcher 

Sophocles might affirm that neither trod." Symonds, The Greek Poets, 

Aeschylus nor Sophocles chose to use p. 230. This seems to me exactly to 

their art for the display of thrilling define one of the most attractive 

splendour. However that may be, poetical distinctions of Euripides. 

Euripides, alone of Greeks, with the Compare the same writer's remarks 

exception of Aristophanes, entered on the lyrics of Aristophanes, p. 250. 
the fairyland of dazzling fancy which 

vol. i g 


is the most 
because he 
is the most 

fectly just. If, however — and this is the popular 
notion — Euripides is to be called the " human " poet 
in contrast with, for instance, Sophocles ; if it is 
meant that Sophocles is comparatively cold, pompous, 
stiff, while Euripides is in a warm, flexible, fruitful 
sympathy with humanity — then the epithet involves 
a confusion of ideas than which nothing could be 

Sophocles more fatal. Euripides is human, but Sophocles is 
more human; Sophocles is so in the only way in 
which a Greek could be so, by being more Greek. 
When the best Greek mind was truest to the law 
of its own nature, it looked at man and man's life in 
the manner of Sophocles — fixing its regard on the 
permanent, divine characteristics of the human type, 
and not suffering minor accidents or unrulinesses or 
griefs so to thrust themselves forward as to mar the 
symmetry of the larger view. True simplicity is 
not the avoidance, but the control, of detail. In 
Sophocles, as in great sculpture, a thousand fine 
touches go to that which, as the greatest living 
creator in fiction has proved, he can still help to 
teach — the delineation of the great primary emotions. 

Sophocles Sophocles is the purest type of the Greek intellect 
at its best. Euripides is a very different thing, a 
highly gifted son of his clay. Ehetorical Dialectic 
has broken into Tragedy, and the religious basis, 
the doctrine of Nemesis, has been abandoned in 
favour of such other interests as the poet can devise. 
Euripides was brilliantly fertile in plots. This is 
what Aristotle means by Tpayi/ccoTaro^, alluding 
especially to sudden and pathetic reversals of situ- 
ation ; for, before Alexander's time, " tragic " had 

the most 
type of the 


already come near to " sensational." l No woman in 
Greek Tragedy is either so human, or so true a 
woman, as the Antigone of Sophocles. 2 

Since, as has been seen, Oratory was for the The plastic 

character as 

Greeks a fine art, it follows that Greek Oratory manifested 

r • . , in Greek 

must have, alter its own kind, that same typical oratory. 
character which belongs to Greek Sculpture and to 
Greek Tragedy. Wherein, then, does it manifest 
this character '? We must here be on our guard 
against the great stumbling-block of such inquiries, 
the attempt to find the analogy in the particulars *"" 
and not in the whole. It might be possible to take 
a speech of Demosthenes and to work out the details 
of a correspondence with a tragedy of Sophocles or a 
work of Pheidias ; but such refinements have usually 
a perilous neighbourhood to fantasy, and, even when 
they are legitimate, are apt to be more curious 
than instructive. How truly and universally Greek 
Oratory bears the plastic stamp, can be seen only ^ 
when it is regarded in its largest aspects. The 
first point to be observed is that, in Greek Oratory, a series ot 
we have a series of types developed by a series of developed 
artists, each of whom seeks to give to his own type f artists! - " 
the utmost clearness and distinction that he is 
capable of reaching. The same thing is true of 

1 The gradual degradation of the 'OXvixiri&dos) xcd ra? Karijyopias 

words Tpaytp5e?v, Tpayopdia, etc., is dcpyp^Kores eadf-ieda. 

a painful hint of this. Perhaps the 2 To Sophocles, hardly less than to 

nadir has been reached when a con- Plato, apply the words of Professor 

temporary of Aristotle's, a master, Jowett (Introduction to the Phacdrus. 

too, of all Attic refinements, can use 2nd edit. n. 102), "We do not irn- 

Tpaywblai of the menaces with which mediately recognise that under the 

a Macedonian queen intimidated marble exterior of Greek literature 

Athens : Hypereides virep W^evlirirov was concealed a soul thrilling with 

col. 37, rots Tpaycjj8ias avrrjs {i.e. spiritual emotion." 


Tragedy, but not in the same degree ; for, in Tragedy, 
the element of consecrated convention was more per- 
sistent ; and, besides, Oratory stood in such manifold 
and intimate relations with the practical life that the 
artist, in expressing his oratorical theory, could 
express his entire civic personality. Hence the 
men who moulded Attic Oratory, whether statesmen 
or not, are good examples of conscious obedience to 
that law of Greek nature which constrained every 
man to make himself a living work of art. " In its 
poets and orators/' says Hegel, 1 " its historians and 
philosophers, Greece cannot be conceived from a 
central point unless one brings, as a key to the 
understanding of it, an insight into the ideal forms of 
sculpture, and regards the images of statesmen and 
philosophers as well as epic and dramatic heroes 
from the artistic point of view ; for those who act, 
as well as those who create and think, have, in those 
beautiful days of Greece, this plastic character. 
They are great and free, and have grown up on the 
soil of their own individuality, creating themselves 
out of themselves, and moulding themselves to what 
they were and willed to be. The age of Pericles was 
rich in such characters : Pericles himself, Pheidias, 
Plato, above all Sophocles, Thucydides also, Xeno- 
phon and Socrates, each in his own order, without 
the perfection of one being diminished by that of the 
others. They are ideal artists of themselves, cast 
each in one flawless mould — works of art which 
stand before us as an immortal presentment of the 


Aesthetik, Part in. Section 2, eh. 1, quoted by Pater, p. 192. 


The plastic character of Greek oratory, — thus 
seen, first of all, in the finished distinction of 
successive types, clearly modelled as the nature that 
wrought them, — is further seen in the individual 
oration. Take it whence we will, from the age of in the m- 
Antiphon or of Demosthenes, from the forensic, from oration, 
the deliberative or from the epideictic class, two 
great characteristics will be found. First, however the main 
little of sustained reasoning there may be, however theme are 
much the argument may be mingled with appeals, p i eX ed, 
reminiscences or invectives, everything bears on the u 
matter in hand. It is an exertion of art, but of art 
strictly pertinent to its scope. No Greek orator 
could have written such a speech as that of Cicero 
For Archias or For Publius Sextus. In a Greek 
speech the main lines of the subject are ever firm ; 
they are never lost amid the flowers of a picturesque 
luxuriance. Secondly, wherever pity, terror, anger, and the 

n t • unity is 

or any passionate feeling is uttered or invited, this sealed by a 
tumult is resolved in a final calm ; and where such 
tumult has place in the peroration, it subsides before 
the last sentences of all. The ending of the speech 
On the Crown — which will be noticed hereafter * — is 
exceptional and unique. As a rule, the very end is 
calm ; not so much because the speaker feels this to 
be necessary if he is to leave an impression of per- 
sonal dignity, but rather because the sense of an ideal 
beauty in humanity and in human speech governs 
his effort as a whole, and makes him desire that, 
w T here this effort is most distinctly viewed as a whole 
— namely, at the close — it should have the serenity 

1 Vol. ir. pp. 416-17. 



Attic per- of a completed harmony. Cicero has now and then 

orations in -_.. .,. 

Cicero ami an Attic peroration, as in the Second rhmppic and 
the Pro Milone ; more often he breaks off in a burst 
of eloquence — as in the First Catilinarian, the Pro 
Flacco and the Pro Cluentio. Erskine's concluding 
sentences in his defence of Lord George Gordon 
are Attic : — " Such topics might be useful in the 
balance of a doubtful case ; yet, even then, I should 
have trusted to the honest hearts of Englishmen to 
have felt them without excitation. At present the 
plain and rigid rules of justice are sufficient to entitle 
me to your verdict." 1 

The person- This seems the fitting place to touch for a moment 

alities of . . . 

on a trait of ancient forensic oratory which has some- 
times been noticed with rather exaggerated emphasis, 
and which, it might be objected, is strangely dis- 
cordant with the character just described — the dis- 
position of Greek as well as Roman orators to indulge 
in personalities of a nature which would be deemed 
highly indecorous in modern times. Their case is 
scarcely, perhaps, mended by the observation that 
the point of honour did not then exist. A more im- 
portant circumstance to observe is that the language 
in question, however strong, is seldom redundant. 
It finds its place ; but it does not overflow ; nor 
does it destroy that self-mastery in the speaker on 

1 This calmness of the Greek perora- to speak the language of the passions, 

tion is noticed by Brougham in his required that both the whole oration 

Dissertation (p. 25), but is more fully and each highly impassioned portion 

discussed in his essay on Demosthenes, of it, should close with cc calmness 

pp. 184 f. He does not, however, approaching to indifference, and tame- 

penetrate to the true Greek feeling ness." There comes in the popular 

when he says, "The same chastened modern notion of the sculpturesque, 
sense of beauty which f ovicide a statue 


which the unity of his utterance depends. From the 
artistic point of view — and from this alone it is now 
being regarded — it is a distressing blemish ; yet not, 
even here, of the order to which it is referred by 
those whose estimate of it is purely modern, since 
it is not permitted to disturb the symmetry or the 
repose of the whole. Unquestionably, the scale of 
life in the Greek republics, and the dialect of the 
aristocracy at Eome, often imparted to the mutual 
criticisms of their orators a parochial character which 
is comparatively rare in the public discussions of the 
present day. Apart from this accident, however, 
modern analogies are, unfortunately, not wanting. 1 
The speech against Ctesiphon and the speech against 
Piso certainly contain exceedingly strong phrases. 
Catullus, who used the ordinary language of society 
in his day, 2 is less euphemistic than Byron. But 
scurrility is not the measure of vituperation. Ancient 
invective concentrated the former. Modern invective 
prefers to diffuse, without diluting, the latter. 

The superiority of Greek oratory to Roman, in Superiority 

. . -i i l of Greek to 

the deliberative and forensic branches alike, has been Roman 
recognised by the best critics as well as by the most 
competent practical judges. Brougham, who speaks Brougham 
with the authority of both characters, brings this 
out with great force and clearness. He says: — "In 

1 Specimens of the language ad- fied Cicero. One or two of them will 

dressed by Coke, then Attorney- be found in the Quarterly Hevieiv, 

General, to Raleigh, whose prose- No. 132, p. 470. Those who desire 

cution he was conducting, will be further illustrations may read, or 

found in a note to Mr. Forsyth's recall, the debates in the House of 

Hortcnsius, p. 45. The phrases are Commons of May 15 and June 8, 1846. 

surpassed by nothing in Aeschines. 2 See H. A. J. Munro on Catullus's 

Chatham's most effective retorts were 29 th Poem in the Journal of Philology, 

personalities which might have satis- n. 1-34 (1869). 


unfit for 
the modern 
Senate or 

all his (Cicero's) orations that were spoken (for. 
singular as it may seem, the remark applies less to 
those which were only written, as all the Verrine, 
except the first, all the Philippics, except the first 
and ninth, and the Pro Milone), hardly two pages 
can be found which a modern assembly would bear. 
Some admirable arguments on evidence, and the 
credit of witnesses, might be urged to a jury ; several 
passages, given by him on the merits of the case, 
and in defence against the charge, might be spoken 
in mitigation of punishment after a conviction or 
confession of guilt ; but, whether we regard the 
political or forensic orations, the style, both in 
respect of the reasoning and the ornaments, is wholly 
unfit for the more severe and less trifling nature of 
modern affairs in the senate or at the bar. Now, 
it is altogether otherwise with the Greek masters ; 
changing a few phrases, which the difference of 


almost all . , 1 

the Greek religion and of manners might render objectionable, 

orations . „ . 

could be — moderating, in some degree, the virulence 01 in- 
vective, especially against private character, to suit 
the chivalrous courtesy of modern hostility, — there 
is hardly one of the political or forensic orations of 
the Greeks that might not be delivered in similar 
circumstances before our senate or tribunals." 1 

Eeasons of The main reason of this decided advantage on the 
is supe ^^ ^ Greek practical oratory — and the epideictic 
oratory has a corresponding excellence relatively to 

the a /oint; that of the French Pulpit — is the business-like 

1 Inaugural Discourse, pp. 122 f. and austere," adds: — "could it be 

Hume, again, observing that Cicero copied, its success would be infallible 

is "too florid and rhetorical," and over a modern assembly." (Essay 

that Greek oratory is "more chaste xn., Of Eloquence, p. 60.) 

oratory is 


character already noticed. If everything is not 
logical, everything is at least relevant. Cicero, with 
all his ingenuity, brilliancy and wit, is so apt to 
wander into mere display, and this display is so 
openly artificial, that, as Brougham says, "nothing 
can be less adapted to the genius of modern elocu- 
tion." The style of modern debate comes far nearer 
to the Greek than to the Latin. But there are 
two other causes which should be remarked, one 
especially influential in Deliberative, the other in 
Forensic, oratory. The first is that, in the days of the poiiti- 

i -nil i' - i ca l i ns pi ra " 

the great Boman eloquence, Borne had no political tions of 
rival. Her discipline and her manners contributed oratory are 
with her civic security to exempt her citizens from nooer ' 
sudden or violent emotion. What Claudian 1 after- 
wards happily called the vitae Romania quies already 
prevailed. If the paradox of Quintilian 2 be true, that 
Demosthenes has plus curae, Cicero plus naturae, it 
is true in this sense alone, that Cicero is an inferior 
artist, and indulges more freely the taste of the 
natural man for ornament. But that Boman oratory 
should be on the whole more artificial than the 
Greek, and more limited in its range of subjects, was 
inevitable. Athens, the antagonist of Sparta or 
Thebes, Athens vigilant against Persia or threatened 
by Macedon, was a city in which the inspirations 
of eloquence were not only personal but national. 
Secondly : the Boman pair onus, who pleaded his and the 

i l r i forensic 

client's cause gratuitously, rewarded by the fact that motive is 

• • ii*i more 

all the higher paths of ambition opened directly genuine. 
from the forum, had, doubtless, an incentive to 

1 Be sexto consulatu Honorii August i (404 a.d.), v. 150. - x. 1 § 106. 


eloquent declamation which his Attic brother, the 
professional logographos, did not possess. But he 
had not anything like the same inducement to 
handle his case scientifically. He was a political 
aspirant, not a man settled to a calling ; and, from 
a forensic point of view, the element of unreality 
in his position had a strong tendency to vitiate 
his performance by making it, before all things, a 

History of 

Two* con- 
ditions for 
the possi- 
bility of 
any such 

Late ap- 
pearance of 
oratory as 
an Art. 

The least gifted people, in the earliest stage of 
intellectual or political growth, will always or usually 
have the idea, however rude, of a natural oratory. 
But oratory first begins to have a history, of which 
the development can be traced, when two conditions 
have been fulfilled. First, that oratory should be 
conceived, no longer subjectively, but objectively also, 
and from having been a mere faculty, should have 
become an art. Secondly, that an oration should 
have been written in accordance with the theory of 
that art. The history of Greek oratory begins with 
Gorgias. The history of Attic oratory, properly so 
called, begins with Antiphon. 

The special attributes and endowments of the 
Greeks would lead us to expect, before the beginnings 
of an oratorical art, a singularly rich and various 
manifestation of natural eloquence, and also an early 
moment of origin for the art itself. Now, as a 
matter of fact, the origin of the art was singularly 
late, relatively to the gifts and to the general artistic 
tendency of the race ; but the causes of this delay 


were external and political. On the other hand, Extra- 
no documents of any early society can show an brilliancy 

of the pre- 

exuberance, a brilliancy, a diversified perfection of theoretic 

n*i i Oratory. 

natural eloquence comparable to that which makes 
one of the chief glories of the Homeric poems. By 
"natural" is meant, not necessarily unstudied, but 
unsystematic, or antecedent to a theory of Ehetoric. 
The man to whom the gods had given ayopTjrvs, Homeric 

estimate of 

the power of discourse, — that which, with beautiful Eloquence. 

strength, (J>vrj, and good sense, $/>ei>€?, makes the 

Homeric triad of human excellences, — might cultivate 

it ; but so long as this cultivation is empirical, not 

theoretic, the eloquence which it achieves is still 

natural. From Achilles to Thersites, the orators of 

the Iliad and the Odyssey are individual. If Achilles Homeric 

. illustra- 

alone is a Demosthenes, who had no detects to con- tions or 

. T Eloquence. 

quer and no mysteries to learn, JNestor is an Isocrates 
unaided or unembarrassed by his system, Telemachus 
an ingenuous youth who has no need of prompting by 
a Lysias, Odysseus a speaker in whom the logical , 
terseness of Isaeus is joined to something like the 
unscrupulous smartness, though to nothing like the 
theatrical splendour, of Aeschines. Nor does any 
oratory that the ancient world has left approach so Modem 
nearly as the Homeric to the modern ideal. The of the great 
reason of this is that the great orations of the Iliad speeches: 
are made in debate, and the greatest of all are replies, 
— as the answer of Achilles to the envoys in the 
First Book. Condensed statement, lucid argument, T 
repartee, sarcasm, irony, overwhelming invective, pro- 
found and irresistible pathos, — all these resources are 
absolutely commanded by the orators of the Iliad, 


their his- 
torical sig- 

The Ho- 
meric elo- 
quence is 
still aris- 
not civil. 

First con- 
ditions of 
civil elo- 
quence — 

and popu- 
lar culture. 

and all these must have belonged to him, or to those, 
by whom the Iliad was created. As Mr. Gladstone 
has said, 1 "Paradise Lost" does not represent the 
time of Charles the Second, nor the "Excursion" 
the first decades of this century, but " as, when we 
find these speeches in Homer, we know that there 
must have been men who could speak them, so, from 
the existence of units who could speak them, we 
know that there must have been crowds who could 
feel them." 

The Homeric ideal, to shine in eloquence as in 
action, to be at once " a speaker of words and a doer 
of deeds," "good in counsel, and mighty in war/ 7 
had ample scope, as far as kings and nobles were 
concerned, in the council and the agora. But the 
eloquence of the commons does not appear to have 
been particularly encouraged by the chiefs, and the 
consummate individuality of an Achilles or an 
Odysseus was no real step towards the development 
of a popular oratory based upon a theory communi- 
cable to all. In the presence of these great debaters 
of the Iliad, the Homeric tis, when present at all, 
is essentially a layman, confined strictly to the 
critical function, and uttering his criticisms, when 
they find utterance, in the fewest and plainest 
words. Democracy, with its principle of lo-rjyopLa, — 
the principle that every citizen has an equal right 
to speak his mind about the concerns of the city, — 
was necessary before a truly civil eloquence could be 
even possible. But, after Democracy had arisen, a 
further condition was needed, — the cultivation of 

1 Studies on Homer, in. 107. 


the popular intelligence. What is so strikingly 
characteristic of Greek Democracy in the period The 

faculty of 

before an artistic oratory is this, — that the power of speech— 

.its place in 

public speaking now exists, indeed, as a political early Greek 
weapon, but, instead of being the great organ by cracy. 
which the people wield the commonwealth, is con- 
stantly used by designing individuals against the 
people. It is employed as a lever for changing the 
democracy into a tyranny. Such names as Arista- 
goras, Evagoras, Protagoras, Peisistratus, frequent 
especially in the Ionian colonies, indicate, not the 
growth of a popular oratory, but the ascendency 
which exceptionally gifted speakers were able to 
acquire, especially in democracies, before oratory 
was yet an accomplishment studied according to a 

The intellectual turning-point came when Poetry The in- 

. tellectual 

ceased to have a sway of which the exclusiveness turning- 

• iii point — 

rested on the presumption that no thought can be first con- 

..,,,.,. 1 . caption of 

expressed artistically which is not expressed metric- a literary 
ally. So soon as it had been apprehended that to 
forsake poetical form w 7 as not necessarily to renounce 
beauty of expression, an obstacle to clear reflection 
had been overcome. Mythology and cosmical specu- 
lation began to have a rival, — a curiosity withdrawn 
from the cloud-regions of the past or of the infinite to 
the things of practical life. And this life itself was 
growing more complex. The present, with its prob- 
lems which must be solved under penalties, was 
becoming ever more importunate, and would no 
longer suffer men's thoughts to wander in mazes 
where they could find no end : — 



opening of 
secure in- 
the cities : 

The riddling Sphinx put dim things from our minds, 
And set us to the questions at our doors. 

The political turning-point came with the Persian 
point— Wars. Greek freedom was secured against the bar- 
barian. A maritime career was opened to commerce. 
The Greek cities everywhere came into more active 
intercourse ; and the centre of the Greek world was 
andthenew Athens. The Dorian States, Sparta and Argos, had 
Athens! ° never been favourable to the artistic treatment of 
language. This, like all art and science, was especi- 
ally the province of the Ionians ; and, for the future 
of oratory, it was of the highest importance that the 
central city of Hellas should be Ionian. But, though 
Athens perfected the art, and soon became almost its 
sole possessor, the first elements were prepared else- 
Extemai where. The two principal forces which moulded 
m uences ^^ ora £ or y came f rom the East and the West. One 
was the Practical Culture of Ionia ; the other was the 
Ehetoric of Sicily, 
i. The The theories of the Ionian physicists had not been 

culture' of able to interest more than a few, still less had they 
been able to draw away the mass of the people from 
the old poetical faith ; nor had the Ionian chroniclers 
made any but the rudest approaches to a written 
prose, But the national Wars of Liberation had 
quickened all the pulses of civic life, Freedom once 
secured, the new intellectual tendency took a definite 
shape. Men arose who, in contrast with the specula- 
tive philosophers, undertook to give a practical culture. 
This culture had representatives in every part of 
Greece, But, while in Sicily and Magna Graecia it 
was engrossed' with Rhetoric, in Asiatic, and especially 

which pre- 
pared Attic 


Ionian, Hellas it was more comprehensive. There, its 
essence was Dialectic, in connexion with a training 
sometimes encyclopaedic, sometimes directed especi- 
ally to grammar or to literary criticism. These more 
comprehensive teachers were known by the general 
name of Sophists. 1 Those who, like the Sicilians, had 
a narrower scope were sometimes called Sophists, but 
were especially and properly called Ehetors. 

Protagoras of Abclera, the earliest of the Sophists Pr« 
proper, was born about 485 B.C., and travelled through- 
out Greece, teaching, for about 40 years, from 455 to 
415. The two things by which he is significant for 
artistic oratory are, his Dialectic, and the Common- 
places which he made his pupils commit to memory. 
His Dialectic is famous for its undertaking to make 
the weaker cause the stronger. One of the uses of 
Rhetoric, as Aristotle says, is to succour truth when 
truth is imperilled by the weakness of its champion : 
but this is not the place to inquire whether Protagoras 
intended, or how far he was bound to foresee, an 
immoral application. As a mental discipline, his 
Dialectic was important to oratory, not merely by 
its subtlety, but by its treatment of the rhetorical 
syllogism. The prepared topics which his pupils 

1 It does not fall within my pro- No. 8 (1872). 
vince to enter on the " Sophist "<on- For the details given here respect - 

troversy, to which, in this country, ing particular Sophists or Rhetors, I 

eminent scholars have lately given a have used chiefly : — (1) Cope's papers 

new life. But I would invite the on the Sophists and the Sophistical 

reader's attention to a note, on p. Rhetoric, in the Journal of Classical 

127 of my second volume, as to the and Sacred Philology, i. 145-188, n. 

use of the word by Isocrates. And I 129-169, in. 34-80 : (2) Westermami. 

would record my general agreement Gesch. der Beredsarnkeit, pp. 36-48 : 

with the reasoned development of (3) Blass, die Attischc Bercdsamkcit 

Grote's view by Mr. H. Sidgwick, in von Gorgias bis r.u Lysias. pp. 1-78. 
the Jour iicd of Philology. Vol. iv. 


learned seem to mark a stage when public speaking 
in general was no longer purely extemporary, but 
when, on the other hand, the speech was not, as in 
Antiphon's time, wholly written. In regard to lan- 
guage, Protagoras insisted on 6p6oeireia — i.e. a correct 
accidence : but there is no proof that he sought to 
make a style ; both the Ionic fragment in Plutarch 1 
and the myth in Plato 2 are, for the prose of the time, 
simple, and they are free from the Gorgian figures. 
Prodicus. Prodicus of Ceos — the junior by many years of 

Protagoras — was neither, like the latter, a dialectician 
nor a rhetor of the Siceliot type, but rather, like 
Hippias, the teacher of an encyclopaedic culture. 
There is no reason to think that he, any more than 
Protagoras or Hippias, concerned himself with the 
artistic oratory of Gorgias. Xenophon gives in the 
Memorabilia 3 a paraphrase of the " Choice of Hera- 
cles " as related by Prodicus in his fable called T £lpai. 
When Philostratus 4 says that he need not describe 
the style of Prodicus because Xenophon has sketched 
it, he is refuted by Xenophon himself, who observes 
that the diction of Prodicus was more ambitious than 
that of his paraphrase. 5 There are certainly con- 
fusions of synonyms which the Platonic Prodicus 
distinguishes ; 6 and the only safe inference appears to 

1 Pint. Trapa/ivdyTLKOs rrpbs 'AttoX- 5uoK€i {dicpKei ?) UpodiKos rr\v vtt' 
\<bvt.ov, c. 33 {Moral, p. 118), t&v yap 'Aperrjs^paicXeovs iraibevcnv , iKoa/irjae 
vleojv v€7}vlu)v — aiiy\x^vly\v . jxevTOL rets yv<Jojias en jueyaXeiOTepoLS 

2 Plat. Protag. pp. 320 D-328 C. pqixaaiv ?) eyCo vvv. 

3 ii. i. §§ 21-33. Xen. calls it to 6 As Blass points out (I. c), Xeno- 
a-vyypafjLfia to irepi 'UpaKkeovs. plion {Mem. II. i. § 24) makes Prodicus 

4 Vit. Sophist, p. 16 (Kayser), teal use TepTrecrOat, r/deaOat, etitppaive&Ocu, in- 
ri av x^P a KT7]pi^0LfjLev ttju tov UpodUov distinguishably : whereas Plato (Pro£. 
y\u>TTav, EevocpQvTos avTrjv IkclvQs vtto- 337 c) makes Prodicus appropriate 
ypacpovros ; eveppalveadai to intellectual, -fjdeadai 

5 Mem. ii. i. § 34, ovtw it us to sensuous pleasure. 


be that, however faithful Xenophon may have been 
to the matter of the fable, he is a witness of no 
authority for its form. The true point of contact 
between Proclicus and the early Rhetoric is his effort 
to discriminate words which express slight modifica- 
tions of the same idea, and which, therefore, were not 
ordinarily distinguished by poets or in the idiom of 
daily life. However unscientific his effort may have 
been, it at least represented a scientific tendency, 
which soon set its mark on literature as well as on 
thought. Two men who are said to have been pupils of 
Proclicus — Euripides and Isocrates — show clear traces 
of it ; but, for reasons which will appear further on, 
it is especially distinct in the earliest phase of 
artistic oratory — in Antiphon, and above all in 

Hippias of Elis is of no immediate significance mppias. 
for our subject. Neither Dialectic nor Rhetoric was 
included, or at least prominent, in the large circle of 
arts and sciences which he professed to teach. Econo- 
mics, Ethics and Politics — " the faculty of managing 
public affairs along with his own" 1 — formed his 
especial province. Like all the other Sophists, he 
touched, of course, the domain of grammar and pros- 
ody ; his TpcoL/cbs X0709, 2 a dialogue between Nestor 
and Neoptolemus, made pretensions to elegance of 
style, but probably not of a poetical or Gorgian cast ; 3 
and, in Plato, Hippias assigns, not his oratory, but 

1 Plat. Hipp. Mai. 282 B, rb /cat 3 Philostratus, at least, says of 
t<x d-rj/bLocna irp&Treiv dvpaadat fxera Hippias that lie wrote "powerfully 
tuv Idioju. Cf. Cope in Journ. Class. and naturally," els 6\iya Karacpevyoou 
and Sacr. Phil. III. 63. rCov ek 7roL7]TLKrjs ovo/iara, Vit. Sophist. 

2 Plat. I. c. p. 286 A. p. 15 (Kayser). 

VOL. I h 




of the 




II. The 


of the 

his political insight, as the ground of his selection as 
an ambassador by the Eleans. 1 

Thrasymachus of Chalcedon stands in a far riper 
and more definite relation to Attic rhetorical prose. 
and will more properly be noticed in connexion with 
the progress from Antiphon to Lysias, when we come 
to look back on the development as a whole. 2 

These, then, were the two things by which the 
Eastern or Ionian school of practical culture prepared 
the ground for Attic oratory : first and chiefly, popular 
Dialectic ; secondly, in the phrase of Protagoras, 
orthoepy — attention to correctness in speaking or 
writing. In contrast with the Eastern Dialectic stands 
the Western Ehetoric. In contrast with the Ionian 
study of correct diction, bpQokireia, stands the Sicilian 
study of beautiful diction, eveireta. 

Deeper causes than a political crisis fitted Sicily 
to become the birthplace of Ehetoric. The first cause 
was the general character of the Sicilian Greeks. 
Thucydides remarks that the quick and adventurous 
Athenians, who were often benefited by Lacedae- 
monian slowness or caution, found most formidable 
adversaries in the Syracusans just because the Syra- 
cusans were so like themselves ; 3 and this resemblance, 
we have good reason to suppose, included the taste 
for lively controversy and the passion for lawsuits 
described by Aristophanes in the Wasps. " An acute 
people, with an inborn love of disputation/' is the 
description of the Sicilians which Cicero quotes from 

1 Plat. I c. p. 281 (ad iniL). He 
is a diKaarris koX dyyeXos roov \bywv 
ol civ irapa rCov irbXeoov £kcl<jtoov \e- 


See Vol. II. ch. xxiii. 

/xdXtcrra bfioibrpoTrot, Time. VIII. 



Aristotle : x " Sicilians are never so miserable," he 
says in one of the Verrine speeches, " that they cannot 
make a happy joke.' ; 2 The population thus gifted Political 
had, further, gone through the same political phases ment of 

. 1 . -. the Sicilian 

as Athens : through aristocracy they had arrived at cities. 
tyranny, and through tyranny at a democracy. The 
flourishing: age of the Sicilian Tyrants — the early part The Age 

& & J J L of the 

of the fifth century B.C. — was illustrated by art and Sicilian 

. . T Tyrants. 

literature, by the lyric poetry which, native to Ionia, 
found its most splendid theme in the glory of these 
Dorian princes of the West, and by a home-growth of 
Comedy, the creation of Phormis and Epicharmus. It 
was in 466 that Thrasybulus, last of the Gelonian The 

-. Democratic 

dynasty, was expelled and that a democracy was Revolution. 

established at Syracuse. Somewhat later, a democracy 

arose at Agrigentum also. Popular life was now as character 

n- -i • at o i of Sicilian 

exuberant in Sicily as it was at Athens alter the Demo- 
Persian Wars; but, with its mixture of races, it was 
less fortunately tempered ; its vigour, instead of glow- 
ins; with the sense of national welfare secured against 
aliens, had the feverish vehemence of a domestic 
reaction ; and hence we should be prepared to find 
these younger democracies showing almost at once 
some features which do not appear in the elder 
Athenian democracy until the time of the Pelopon- 
nesian War. But it was neither by the turbulent 
rivalries of the popular assembly, nor by the natural 
growth of crvtcofyavTiKr) or pettifogging, that the formu- circum- 
lation of Rhetoric as an Art was immediately caused, mu ieY 
The absolute princes of Sicily had clone as they listed, Historic 


an Art. 
1 Cic. Brut. xii. § 46. 

Cic. In Verr. iv. 43 ad fin. Cf. Quint, ti. 3 § 41. 


ment of 
civil life 
by the 



They had banished, they had confiscated,-— like Diony- 
Derange- sius I. in later times, they had effaced towns and 
transferred populations, — they had turned all things 
upside-down. When they were driven out, and when 
governments arose based on the equality of citizens 
before the law, a crowd of aggrieved claimants pre- 
sented themselves wherever that law had a seat. 
"Ten years ago/' this one would say, " Hieron 
banished me from Syracuse because I was too much 
a democrat, and gave my house on the Epipolae to 
Agathocles, who still lives among you; I ask the 
people to restore it to me." "When Gelon razed our 
city," another would say, "and divided the lands 
among his friends, we were commanded to dwell at 
Selinus, where I have lived many years; my father's 
land was given to a favourite of the tyrant's, whose 
first cousin still holds it ; I ask you to insist on this 
man making restitution." Claims of this kind would 
be innumerable. And, besides those which were 
founded in justice, a vast number of false claims 
would be encouraged by the general presumption that 
the rights of property had been universally deranged. 
If, twenty years after the Cromwellian Settlement of 
Ireland, a government had arisen of such a nature as 
to make it worth people's while to dispute every posses- 
sion taken under that settlement in the Ten Counties, 
the state of things which would have ensued would have 
borne some resemblance to that which prevailed through- 
out Sicily, but especially at Syracuse, in 466 B.C. 1 
Now, if we consider what would be, as a rule, the 

1 Those who wish to test the wellian Settlement by Mr. J. P. 
accuracy of this illustration are re- Prendergast. (Longmans, 1865.) 
ferred to the History of the Crom- 


characteristics of claims to property made under such General 
conditions, we shall find that they throw a significant of^uci? 
light on the little which is expressly recorded in ° aim *' 
regard to the first artists of Ehetoric. First, such 
claims would, as a rule, go several years back, and 
would often require for their elucidation that a compli- 
cated mass of details should be stated or arranged. 
Secondly, such claims would often lack documentary 
support; the tablets proving a purchase, a sale, or 
a contract, would, in many or most cases, have been 
lost or destroyed, and the claimant would have 
to rely chiefly on inferences from other facts which 
he could substantiate. If, then, we imagine a man Best aids 
conceiving the idea that these innumerable claimants claimants .- 
want help, and that the occupation of helping them 
may be a way to notoriety or gain, in what particular 
forms is it probable that he would have tried to render 
this help ? He would have seen, first, that people 1. skin in 


must be assisted to deal with an array of complex img tacts ; 
facts ; they must be taught method. He would have 
seen, second!)", that they must be assisted to dispense 
with documentary or circumstantial evidence ; they 2. sidii in 
must be given hints as to the best mode of arguing proba- 8 
from general probabilities. 

Diogenes Laertius quotes a statement of Aristotle Empecio- 
that Empedocles was the inventor of Ehetoric, as 
Zenon of Dialectic. 1 The more cautious phrase of 

1 Diog. viii. 57, 'Api<TTOT^\r)s 5' well as generally 'Ofx^pcKos. Twining 

ev tw ao(pi<jTr) (prjaL irpwrov 'E/iwedo- notices (Vol. I. p. 249) the apparent 

/cXea prjToptK^v evpe?v, Zrjvcova de discrepancy between this statement 

diaKeKTLKTjv. In his lost work irepl and that in the Poetics c. 1. — that 

irocriT&v, Arist. (as quoted by Diog. Empedocles and Homer have ovdev 

I. c.) said that Empedocles was decuos kolvov tt\7]v to juerpov. 
Tepl tt]v (ppdaLv and jieracpopiKos, as 


Sextus Empiricus l (also from Aristotle), which 
Quintilian translates, is that Empedocles broke 
ground {fceKiv^Kevat, aliqua movisse) in Ehetoric. 
Assuredly the poet and philosopher of Agrigentum 
created, at least, no rhetorical system. His oratory — 
which, after the fall of Thrasydaeus in 472, found 
political scope in resistance to a restoration of the 
tyranny — however brilliant, was practical only ; and 
his analogy — so far as the wanderings of his later 
years and the union of care for studied expression 
with a doctrine give the semblance of such — is, at 
least, more with the Sophists of proper Greece than 
with the Sicilian Ehetors. 

Corax. The founder of Ehetoric as an Art was Corax 

of Syracuse. He had enjoyed some political con- 
sideration in the reign of Hieron (478-467 B.C.), and 
was probably several years older than Empedocles." 
The law r suits which followed the establishment of the 
democracy are said to have given him the idea of 
drawing up, and committing to writing, a system of 
rules for forensic speaking. This was his re^vrj or Art 
of Ehetoric — the earliest theoretical Greek book, not 
merely on Ehetoric, but in any branch of art. There 
is no mention of speeches composed by him either 
for himself or for others. Nor, except the story of 
his lawsuit with Tisias, is there any evidence that he 

Treatise of taught Ehetoric for pay. In regard to the contents 

Corax on ijj r> n • 

Ehetoric: of his " Art, two facts are known which are of 
interest. They are precisely those which, as has been 
shown, we should have expected to find. First, he 
gave rules for arrangement — dividing the speech 

1 vii. 6 : Quint, in. 1 § 8. 


into five parts — proem, narrative, arguments (a/yaW?), Arrange- 
subsidiary remarks (rrapUfiao-Ls) and peroration. 1 
Secondly, he illustrated the topic of general prob- The topic 
ability, bringing out its two-edged application : e.g. 
if a physically weak man is accused of an assault, he 
is to ask, " Is it probable that I should have attacked 
Mm?" if a strong man is accused, he is to ask, 
"Is it probable that I should have committed an 
assault in a case where there was sure to be a pre- 
sumption against me?" Nothing could be more 
suggestive of the special circumstances in which the 
art of Ehetoric had its birth. The same topic of 
Probability holds its place in the Tetralogies of 
Antiphon. 2 But its original prominence was, in 
truth, a Sicilian accident. 3 

Tisias, the pupil of Corax, must have been born Tisias. 
about 485 B.C. We hear that he was the master of 
Lysias at the colony of Thurii (founded in 443 B.C.), 
and of the young Isocrates at Athens — about 418 B.C. ; 
Pausanias makes him accompany Gorgias to Athens 
in 427 B.C. ; and speaks of him as having been 
banished from Syracuse. 4 Whatever may be the 
worth of these details, the main facts about Tisias 
are clear. He led the wandering life of a Sophist. 

1 The ay&ves and rrapeK^acns are Topica. The fallacy arises from the 
thus explained in the Greek prolego- omission to distinguish between ab- 
mena to Hermogenes, Spengel, aw- stract and particular probability. . 
aywY7? rexvCjv, p. 25. Arist. illustrates it by the verses of 

2 See below, pp. 46 ff. Agathon : — "Perhaps one might call 

3 This topic of ekos — the great this very thing a probability,— that 
weapon of the early Rhetoric — stands many improbable things will happen 
ninth among those topics of the fal- to men." "Of this topic," says Aris- 
laeious enthymeme which Aristotle totle (lih. n. 24 § 9) "the Treatise of 
enumerates in Rhet. n. 24 — a chapter Corax is made up." Cf. Spengel, avv- 
which, for •his Rhetoric, is what the aycoyrj rex^Cov, pp. 30 f. 

irepl ao<piaTiK(bv eXeyxuv is for the 4 Pausan. vi. 17 § 8. 


The And in his Art of Rhetoric — the only work of his 

"Rhetoric" . 

ofTisias. which antiquity possessed — he followed his master 
The^ topic in further developing the topic of Probability. 1 
further Those who bring a scientific spirit to the study 

of Attic oratory need not be cautioned against allow- 
ing what is ignoble, puerile, or even immoral in the 
earliest Greek Rhetoric to prejudice their estimate of 
the real services afterwards rendered both to language 
and to thought by the conception of expression as 
an art. Popular sentiment is universally against 
new subtleties. To gauge the morality of the early 
Rhetoric by the feeling of the people would be as 
unreasonable as to judge Socrates on the testimony of 
Real mean- the Clouds. The real meaning of the story about 

ing of the m -,..... 

lawsuit the lawsuit between Corax and Tisias lies in its 


illustration of the people's feeling. Corax, suing 
Tisias for a fee, argued that it must be paid whether 
he gained or lost his cause ; if he gained, under the 
verdict ; if he lost, because the success of his pupil 
proved the fee to have been earned ; Tisias inverted 
the dilemma ; and the judges dismissed them both 
with the comment, " bad crow, bad eggs." What 
this really expresses is not the character of the 
earliest Rhetoric, but its grotesque unpopularity. 
Gorgias. Gorgias is a man of whose powers and merits 

it is extremely difficult for us now to form a clear 
or impartial notion. This is not, however, because 
the portrait of him in Plato is so vivid. Nothing 
more distinguishes Plato from later satirists of like 
keenness than his manner of hinting the redeeming 
points of the person under dissection ; and, whenever 

1 Plat. Phaedr. 267 A, 273 A-c. 


Gorgias comes in — whether in the dialogue that 
bears his name or elsewhere — it may be discerned 
(I venture to think) that Plato's purpose was to 
bring out an aspect of the man — that aspect which 
he considered most important — but that he allowed, 
and was writing for those who knew, that there was 
another side to the picture. This other side is 
suggested by the fact that Gorgias had at least some 
influence on a man of such intellectual power as 
Thucydicles, on one so highly cultivated as the tragic 
poet Agathon, and on so shrewd a judge of practical 
ability as Jason of Pherae. The difficulty of now 
estimating Gorgias conies from this, — that he was 
an inventor whose originality it is hard for us to 
realise, but an artist whose faults are to us peculiarly 
glaring. Gorgias of Leontini was born about 485 B.C. 
Tradition made him the pupil of Empedocles ; but 
their nearness in age makes this unlikely. That they 
knew each other is probable enough. Gorgias, like 
Protagoras, began with natural philosophy ; and, after 
employing Eleatic methods to combat Eleatic con- 
clusions, turned from a field of which he held himself 
to have proved the barrenness. The practical culture The pro 
to which he next addressed himself differed both from Gorgias, 
that of the Eastern Sophists and from that of the Dialectic 
Sicilian Ehetors. It was founded neither upon Rhetoric, 
Dialectic nor upon a systematic Rhetoric. Its basis but 
was Oratory considered as a faculty to be developed ll I} ' 
empirically. Whether Gorgias left a written Art or 
not, is doubtful ; it seems more probable that he did 
not ; 1 and his method of teaching — which reappears 

1 On this point see Blass, p. 53. 


a century and a half later with the beginnings of 
Asianism 1 — rested on the commission to memory of 
prepared passages. These passages were especially 
such as might serve to magnify the speaker's theme 
(avfycris) or to bring out the enormity of a wrong 
(Seti/G><™?). Beautiful and effective expression (Xe^?) 
was the one great object. Gorgias seems to have 
given little or no heed to the treatment of subject- 
matter, — to invention or management ; or even to 
that special topic of Probability which was already 
engaging so much of the attention of Ehetoric. He 
was himself a man with a brilliant gift for language. 
His general conception was simple enough, but, for 
his own day and world, both bold and original. 
If the faculty of expression is cultivated to the right 
point, and is combined with a certain amount of 
general information, it will carry all before it. Just 
in the spirit in which Vivian Grey is described as 
saying to himself " knowledge is power," Gorgias said 
to himself, " expression is power." He considered 
the gift in its relation to victory, and this victory 
not to be such narrow and painful success as was 
prepared by the pedantries of the rhetors, but dazzling 
and world-wide. Everything recorded of the man 
suggests his immense self-confidence, his capacity for 
sustained work, his exuberant vitality, and, above all, 
his power of doing what a new style would not have 
done without other gifts — setting the fashion to the 
ambitious among the rising generation, or even excit- 
His first ing a popular enthusiasm. In 427 B.C. the Leon tines 
AtLns. sent an embassy to Athens, praying for help in their 

1 See Vol. ii. ch. xxiv. 


war with Syracuse. " At the head of the envoys," 

says Diodorus, 1 " was Gorgias the rhetor, a man who 

far surpassed all his contemporaries in oratorical force. 

He astonished the Athenians, with their quick minds 

and their love of eloquence, by the foreign fashion (t&5 ™ &'<.& 

%€vl%ovti) of his language" — and by figures which speaking, 

the historian proceeds to enumerate. Now Gorgias 

appears to have always spoken and written in the 

Attic dialect — not in the ordinary Sicilian Doric, 

nor in the Ionic of Leontini. 2 The to %ev%ov of 

Diodorus is that " foreign " air which Aristotle in his 

Rhetoric calls to gevi/eov, 3 and which, for Athenians 

at least, was capable, when rightly used, of being 

a charm in oratory. There is no word which will 

exactly translate it, but it is nearly akin to what 

we mean by " distinction." That which was, to the 

Athenians, to %evL%ov, or the element of distinction, 

in the Sicilian's speaking, was its poetical character ; its poetical 

and this depended on two things — the use of poetical 

words, and the use of symmetry or assonance between 

clauses in such a way as to give a strongly marked 

prose-rhythm and to reproduce, as far as possible, 

the metres of verse. The only considerable fragment 

of Gorgias extant is that from the Funeral Oration — 

for the Palamedes and the Helen are now generally 

admitted to be later imitations. A few sentences 

from this will give the best idea of his manner : — 

1 XII. 53, rui) ^evL^ovTL TrjS Xe^ecos 8e? ttolelv ^evrjv tttjv dtdXeKTOV' 
e^ewXrj^e tovs 'Adrjvaiovs ovras evcpvels davfiaaral yap rCov clttovtwv elaiv' 
/ecu (pi\o\6yovs, dicMpepovaLV clvtl- i]8v 5e to davjuacrrov. So ib. § 8, 
derois Kol IcroKibXois kclI Trapicrois to aacpes kcli to i)5v real to ^cvlkov 
real 6/uLOLOTeXevTOLs kclI eTepots tolov- e% et I^olXlcttcl 7) fxeTa<popd. And III. 
tols. On these, see Vol. II. pp. 61 f. 7 § 11, tcl ^eva yudXicnra ap/moTTei 

2 Blass, p. 52. Xeyovn iradriTiKCos. 

3 {e.g.) Arist. Met. III. 2 § 3, dib 


Specimen puapTvpia^ 8e tovtcov Tporrata iarrjo-avTO tcov iroXepLLtov, 

from his 

Epitapliius A to? [lev ayaXfJLCLTa, tovtcov $e avaOrjjjbaTa, ovtc aireipoi 

OVT6 €/jb(f)VTOV "ApeO? OVT6 VOpLlfJLCOV ipOOTCOV OVT6 €V07r\L0V 

epiSos ovt€ <f)ikoKaXov elpr}V7)<$, cre/jivol puev irpbs tou? 0eoijs 
tw Bc/catco, ocrioL Se 7T/50? tovs TOKeas ttj Oeptnreia, hifcaioi 

7T/)0? TOl>? CLGTOVS TCp l(T<p, 6VCT€/3€IS Be 7Tp09 TOU9 (f)lX0VS TJ) 

aireOavev, aXX aOdvciTos ev ovtc dcroo/jLaToc^ crco/jiacrt %j) ov 
^covtcov. 1 

His great It may be hard now to understand how such 

at^thenf a style can have moved to transports of delight men 
to~beimdel- w h° lived among the works of Pheidias and Ictinus, 
stood. w | io ]^ new |-j ie p rose f Herodotus, and whose ears 

were familiar with Homer, with Aeschylus and with 
Sophocles. It is more difficult still, perhaps, to 
realise that the invention of this style was a proof of 
genius. Gorgias was the first man who definitely 
conceived how literary prose might be artistic. That 
he should instinctively compare it with the only other 
form of literature which was already artistic, namely 
poetry, was inevitable. Early prose necessarily 
begins by comparing itself with poetry. Gorgias was 
a man of glowing and eager power ; he carried the 
assimilation to a length which seems incredibly taste- 
less now. But let it be remembered that the interval 
between Gorgias and Thucydides, in some passages of 
the historian's speeches, is not so very wide. And if 
the enthusiasm of the Ecclesia still seems incompre- 
hensible, let it be remembered that they felt vividly 
the whole originality of the man, and did not at all 
see that his particular tendency was mistaken. It 

1 Sauppe, Or. Att, n. 130. 


was only by and by, and after several compromises, 
that men found out the difference between to eppvOpov 
and rb evpvBjjiov, between verse and rhythmical prose : 
namely, that rhythm is the framework of the former 
but only the fluent outline of the latter. If a style is 
new and forcible, extravagances will not hinder it 
from being received with immense applause at its 
first appearance. Then it is imitated until its origin- 
ality is forgotten and its defects brought into relief. 
In the maturity of his genius, Lord Macaulay pro- 
nounced the Essay on Milton to be "disfigured by 
much gaudy and ungraceful ornament." Gorgias 
was the founder of artistic prose ; and his faults are 
the more excusable because they were extravagant. 
Granting the natural assumption that prose was to be 
a kind of poetry, then Gorgias was brilliantly logical ; 
and, as the event proved, his excesses did good, 
service by calling earlier attention to the fallacy in 
his theory. Allowing, however, all that has been 
advanced above, it might still seem strange that 
Gorgias should have had this reception from the 
Assembly which, within three years, had been listen- 
ing to Pericles. But the true question is whether p er icies. 
Pericles had aimed at giving to his eloquence the Was his 
finish of a literary form. Suidas says that Pericles artistic 
was the first who composed a forensic speech before v " 
delivering it; his predecessors had extemporised. 1 
Cicero says that Pericles and Alcibiades are the most 
ancient authors who have left authentic writings. 2 

1 Suidas s. v. IlepLKXrjs ; prjTcop 2 Cic. De Orat. n. § 93, anti- 

tcal drj/LLaywyos, ocrris irpCoros ypairrbv quissimi fere sunt, quorum quidem 

\6yov iv dLK<MTTrip[(t) d-ire, ru>v irpb scripta constent : where the "con- 

atirov exed^ovTuv. stent " seems to imply that the 


Quintilian, however, thinks that the compositions 

extant under the name of Pericles are not worthy of 

his reputation, and that, as others had conjectured, 

statement they were spurious. 1 Plutarch says positively that 

of Plutarch. J r , 

Pericles has left nothing written (eyypaQov) except 
decrees. 2 The antithesis meant by eyypafav is with 
those sayings of Pericles which tradition had pre- 
served ; especially those bold similes from nature and 
life to which reference will be made in considering 
Thucydi- the style of Antiphon. 3 The speeches in Thucy elides 
Speeches doubtless give the general ideas of Pericles with 

of* T^ptipIgs 

essential fidelity ; it is possible, further, that they 
may contain recorded sayings of his like those in 
Aristotle : but it is certain that they cannot be taken 
as giving the form of the statesman's oratory. Like 
the other speeches, they bear the stamp of a manner 
which was not so fully developed until after his death. 
Notices of Pericles as an orator is best known to us from the 
brief but emphatic notices of the impression which 
he made. " This man," says Eupolis, " whenever 
he came forward, proved himself the greatest orator 
among men : like a good runner, he could give the 

other speakers ten feet start, and win Eapid you 

call him ; but, besides his swiftness, a certain per- 
suasion sat upon his lips — such was his spell : and, 
alone of the speakers, he ever left his sting in the 

question of authenticity had been esse qui nihil ab eo scriptum putent, 

examined. . But in Brut. § 27 he haec autem quae feruntur ab aliis esse 

says, more doubtfully, Ante Periclem, composita. 

cuius serivta quaeclam feruntur, lit- „ 

11 • - Plut. Pencl. c. 8, eyypacpop 

tera nulla est quae quidem omatum , , , >, „ , 

1 x fxtv ovoev (nrokehonre 7r\rjv twv y/rj- 

aliquem liabeat. , , , ^, 

/ „ „ . , (picrfiaTOJv a7rojuvr}fJLov€veTaL oe 

his oratory. 

oXiya iravTairacnv. 

1 Quint, in. 1 § 12, Equidem non 
reperio quicquam tanta eloqucntiae 
fama dignum ; ideoque minus miror 3 Below, pp. 27 f. 


hearers." 1 When Aristophanes is describing the 
outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, "Pericles the 
Olympian/' he says, "was thundering and lightening 
and putting Greece in a tumult." 2 Unique as an its distinct- 
Athenian statesman, Pericles must have been in two cations. 
respects unique also as an Athenian orator : — first, 
because he occupied such a position of personal 
ascendency as no man before or after him attained ; 
secondly, because his thoughts and his moral force 
won him such renown for eloquence as no one else 
ever got from Athenians without the further aid of 
artistic expression. His manner of speaking seems 
to have been tranquil, stately to a degree which 
Plutarch seems inclined to satirise, 3 but varied by 
occasional bursts having the character of lofty poetry. 4 

The earliest of those Athenian orators who have History of 
left writings is not the disciple of him who most oratory 
represented the new art of oratory. Antiphon was A^ftiphon : 
chiefly formed, not by the new Oratory, but by the 

1 A. Kp&Ti<rTos odros eyever tion that is thus avouched is prob- 
avdpwirwv Xeyeiv \ 6ttot€ TrapeXdoi, ably not so much explained by, as 
%wcr7rep ay ad ol 8po/j.rjS J £k deKa irobCov it explains, the tradition of his obliga- 
rjpei Xeyuv rovs prjropas. B. Ta%iV tions to such varied instructors as 
Xeyeis /lev irpbs 8e y ai)roO ry rd%et [ Anaxagoras, Damon, and Aspasia... 
TretOu tls eireKadL^ev iirl rots x e ^ e(Tt - v ' To Plato, Pericles was still, though 

i ovtojs €kt)\€l' /ecu fjiovos t£ov prjTopuv | only by traditional reputation, the 

to Kevrpov eyKareXenre tols aKpoa)- most accomplished of all orators " 

/aevois. Eupolis, At) juol, Bo the Frag. (Phacclr. p. 269 E, iravrwv reXedoraros 

Com. i. 162, where the ancient cita- els ttjv p-qropiK^v). — As Mr. Lloyd 

tions of this famous passage are says, Plato seems inclined there to 

brought together. See (e.g.) Cic. connect this excellence of Pericles 

Quint, xn. 10. Brut. § 38. with a study of psychology under 

2 Ar. Acli. 530. 3 Pint. Per. c. 5. Anaxagoras : though the Phaedo p. 
4 Cf. Mr. Watkiss Lloyd's "Age 97 b implies that Anaxagoras did 

of Pericles" i. 159 (speaking of the not enter on such inquiries. Un- 

sweetness of voice and facile swift- doubtedly psychology is what Plato 

ness which distinguished the elo- in the Phaedrus is recommending, 

cution of Pericles) : — "The combina- first of all, to Isocrates ; see on this, 

tion of power, rapidity, and fascina- Blass, Isocrates unci Jsaios, p. 29. 


a disciple, 
not of 
but of the 





at Athens 


450 B.C. 



Athens the 
chief seat 
of Civil 

new Rhetoric, not by Gorgias but by Tisias. The 
influence of Gorgias meets us somewhat, of course, 
even in Antiphon, but far more decidedly in Thu- 
cydides, and then, chastened to a form of which its 
beginnings had little promise, in Isocrates. The 
second half of the fifth century at Athens had 
already given a place in the popular life to the new 
culture. While Comedy set itself against that cul- 
ture, Tragedy had been more compliant. No con- 
trast could be more significant than that between 
the singular barrenness of the trial -scene in the 
Eumenides, or the measured controversies of the 
Ajax, and the truly forensic subtleties of the Orestes. 
Nor was the exercise only mimic. Already the 
public advocates (a-vvrjyopot) formed a class. The 
private advocate was forbidden to take money. 
Hence he usually begins by defining the personal 
interest which has led him to appear. In the next 
century, at least, the law was not strictly observed ; 1 
private advocacy was often paid ; and it is not rash 
to suppose that this practice was as old as the fre- 
quency of litigation. 

But while literary fashion or private need thus 
lent their aid, greater and older causes than these 
had prepared Athens to be the home of Civil Oratory. 

1 Lycurgus thus speaks of the 
mercenary advocacy which in his time 
had become a tolerated practice, Kara 
AeuKp&rovs § 138 (circ. 330 B.C.): — 
"lam astonished if you do not see 
that your extreme indignation is well 
deserved by men who, although they 
have no tie whatever either of kinship 
°r of friendship with the accused 
persons, continually help in defending 

them for pay" — fuadov awairoXo- 
yov/jievoLS del rots Kpivo/ne'pois. — But the 
real error both of Greece and of Rome 
(until, at some time before Justinian, 
Trajan's renewal of the Lex Cincia 
was repealed) lay in Aeir refusal 
to recognise Advocacy as a profes- 
sion. See, on the theory, Forsyth, 
Ho?iensius, pp. 377 ff. 


The chief importance of Grecian history depends on political 
this, that the Greeks are the first people from whom ^Greeks. 
we can learn any lessons in the art of ruling men 
according to law. 1 While all the nations with which 
the Greeks came in contact were governed more or 
less despotically, the Greek cities alone were governed 
politically. No Persian or Egyptian had any con- 
ception of the principle that both sides of a public 
question should be fairly heard, that it should be 
decided by the opinion of the civic majority, and that 
the minority should be bound by this decision. Every 
Greek city, be it planted where it might, at the 
Pillars of Heracles or on the shores of the Inhospitable 
Sea, was perfectly familiar with this doctrine. Some- 
times a tyrant forcibly suspended its operation, some- 
times an oligarchy capriciously narrowed its scope, 
but it was known wherever the Greek tongue was 
spoken. In democratic Athens, more than in any This 
other Greek city, this doctrine was no speculative most prac- 
opinion, no occasional motive, but the jiresent and Athens. 
perpetual spring of public action ; nor did any god- 
dess of the pantheon receive a tribute more fitting or 
more sincere than that which Athenians annually laid 
on the altar of Persuasion. 2 It has sometimes been Relation of 

_ Athenian 

said that Greek Oratory means Athenian Oratory, to Greek 
This is far from beino; true in the sense that all the 
considerable masters of oratorical prose were either 
natives of Attica or permanent residents at Athens. 

1 Freeman, "General Sketch of /mev yap HeiQto jluolu tu>v deCou vofxl- 
European History," cli. n. § 3 : and £ov<jiv ehai, teal tt]p itoXlv dpQat 
the essay on " The Athenian De- /ca#' eaoMrov rbv eviavrov dvaiav 
mocracy" (Second Series, no. iv.). iroiovjihrjv. 

2 Isocr. Antid. (Or. xv. ) § 249, ti\v 




G-orgias of Leontini, Theodoras of Byzantium, Thrasy- 
machus of Chalcedon, Anaximenes of Lampsacus, 
Naucrates of Erythrae, Philiscus of Miletus, Ephorus 
of Cumae, Theopompus of Chios, Theodectes of 
Phaselis, and manv more, mi^ht be adduced. But 
there is another sense in which the statement is true. 
Athens was the home, though Attica was not the 
birthplace, of all the very greatest men in this 
branch of art, of all the men whose works had wide 
and lasting acceptance as canons. Athens was, 
further, the educator of all those men, whether first- 
rate or not, who, after about 400 B.C., won a Panhel- 
lenic name for eloquence. The relation of Athenian 
to Greek oratory is accurately stated by Isocrates 
when, in 353 B.C., he is defending his theory of cul- 
ture against supposed objections — objections which, 
as the very history of his school shows, had never 
really taken hold of the Athenian mind, but were 
restricted to a much narrower circle than his rather 
morbid sensibility imagined. 1 " You must not forget 
that our city is regarded as the established 2 teacher 
of all who can speak or teach others to speak. And 
naturally so, since men see that our city offers the 
greatest prizes to those who possess this faculty, — 
provides the most numerous and most various schools 
for those who, having resolved to enter the real con- 
tests, desire a preparatory discipline, — and, further, 
affords to all men that experience which is the main 
secret of success in speaking. Besides, men hold 

1 Isocr. Antid. (Or. xv.) §§ 295- note the tense, — expressing a position 
298. thoroughly won and generally recog- 

2 doKel yeyevrjadat didddKaXos : nised. 


that the general diffusion and the happy temperament 
of Attic speech, the Attic flexibility of intelligence 
and taste for letters, contribute not a little to literary 
culture ; and hence they not unjustly deem that all 
masters of expression are disciples of Athens. See, 
then, lest it be folly indeed to cast a slur on this 
name which you have among the Greeks... ; that un- 
just judgment will be nothing else than your open 
condemnation of yourselves. You will have done as 
the Lacedaemonians would do if they introduced a 
penalty for attention to military exercises, or the 
Thessalians, if they instituted proceedings at law 7 
against men who seek to make themselves good 

Athenian oratory has two great aspects, the Political 

-, -, -...-, m , . .-1-1 aspect of 

artistic and the political. Hie artistic aspect will Athenian 
necessarily be most prominent in the following pages, 
since their special object is to trace the development 
of Attic oratory in relation to the development of 
Attic prose. When, however, Attic oratory is con- 
sidered, not relatively to Attic prose, but in itself, 
the artistic aspect is not more important than the 
political ; and, if even the literary value of the Attic 
orations is to be fully understood, their political 
significance must not for a moment be left out of 
sight. This significance resides not merely in the 
matter or form of each discourse, but also in the political 
training which had been received by the public to the Greek 
wdiich it is addressed. We must ask ourselves, not c 
merely, "Is this subject well treated?" but also, 
" What manner of a multitude can it have been for 
which the speaker thought this treatment adapted ? " 


and especi- 
ally of the 

Civic sen- 
timent in 
the Greek 
and in the 

Athens and 

The common life of every Greek city, not suppressed 
by tyranny or too much warped by oligarchy, was a 
political education for the citizens. The reason is 
manifest from the very fact that the society was a 
city, and neither a village nor a nation. On the one 
hand, there was the instinct which demanded the 
highest attainable organisation under laws. On the 
other, there was the inability to conceive parliament 
except as a primary assembly. At Athens this 
political education of the citizens was more thorough 
than elsewhere, because at Athens the tendency of a 
commonwealth to deposit all power in an assembly 
was worked out with most logical completeness. 1 All 
the powers of the State, legislative, executive and 
judicial, were concentrated in the absolute Demos : 
the law-courts were committees of the Ecclesia, as the 
archons or generals were its officers. The world has 
seen nothing like this. The Italian Eepublics of the 
middle age were fragments of the Eoman Empire and 
the Kingdom of Italy. It was from their prosperity 
as municipalities that they had derived their inde- 
pendence as States. They grew up among traditions 
of feudal privilege, represented here and there by a 
noble who could openly violate the order of the city 
within whose walls he lived. 2 A Florentine, like an 
Athenian, was a citizen with his share in the govern- 
ment of the city : Florence, like Athens, recognised 
the right of the assembled People to decide questions 
of State. But Florence, until its latest days, had 

1 Freeman, Historical 
(Second Series), pp. 128 f. 


Essays, Second Series), Mr. Freeman 
lias worked out the likeness and un- 
2 In the Essay on "Ancient Greece likeness which here are barely touched 
and Mediaeval Italy" (Historical on. 


nothing truly corresponding to the Ecclesia. The 
citizens were occasionally called together, but there 
was no popular Assembly with an organised and con- 
tinual superintendence of all affairs. Nor was the 
civic sentiment so vivid or so direct for the Florentine 
as for the Athenian. The Florentine acted in politics 
primarily as member of a commercial guild 1 and only 
secondarily as a citizen. The Greek Republics far 
more than the Italian, Athens far more than Florence, 
afforded the proper atmosphere for such an oratory as 
alone, in strictness, can take the lofty name of Civil : civil 
that is, which is addressed by a citizen, educated defined, 
both in ruling and in obeying, to the whole body of 
fellow-citizens who have had the same twofold training 
as himself. The glory of Attic oratory, as such, Attic 
consists not solely in its intrinsic excellence, but also f U \mTtihs 
in its revelation of the corporate political intelligence 
to which it appealed : for it spoke sometimes to an 
Assembly debating an issue of peace or war, some- 
times to a law-court occupied with a private plaint, 
sometimes to Athenians mingled with strangers at a 
festival, but everywhere and always to the Athenian 
Demos, everywhere and always to a paramount People, 
taught by life itself to reason and to judge, 

1 The Florentine burgher was Age of the Despots," p. 128. On the 

qualified for the franchise by belong- mercantile character of the Italian 

ing to one of the incorporated arts : republics as influencing the political, 

Symonds, "Renaissance in Italy: ib. 173 f. 





In describing the Revolution of the Four Hundred 
at Athens, Thucydides lays stress upon the fact 
that the measures which had effected it owed their 
unity and their success to the control of a single 
mind. The figure of Peisander is most conspicuous 
in the foreground. " But he who contrived the 
whole matter, and the means by which it was 
brought to pass, and who had given his mind to it 
longest, was Antiphon ; a man second to no Athenian 
of his day in virtue ; a proved master of device and 
of expression ; who did not come forward in the 
assembly, nor, by choice, in any scene of debate, since 
he lay under the suspicion of the people through a 
repute for cleverness ; but who was better able than 
any other individual to assist, when consulted, those 
who were fighting a cause in a law-court or in the 
assembly. In his own case, too — when the Four 
Hundred in their later reverses were being roughly 
used by the people, and he was accused of having 

VOL. I b 


Birth of 

aided in setting up this same government — he is 
known to have delivered the greatest defence made 
in the memory of my age by a man on trial for his 
life." 1 

This passage gives in outline nearly all that is 
known of the life of Antiphon. Other sources supply 
details, and make it possible to work up the sketch 
into something like a picture ; but they acid nothing 
which enlarges its framework. The Revolution of 
the Four Hundred is still the one great scene pre- 
sented to our view. 

Antiphon was born about the year 480 B.C., 2 being 
thus rather younger than Gorgias, and some eight 
or nine years older than the historian Thucydides. 
He was of the tribe of Aiantis and of the deme of 
Ehamnus ; 3 of a familv which, cannot have been 

1 Time. viii. 68. Philostratus is probably thinking 

2 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. yeyove when he says of the orator, ear pa- 
Kara r<x HepaLKa /cat Topyiav rbv rrjyrjae irXei&Ta, evince 7r\e7crra, 
aocpLaT7]v, o\iyu) vewrepos avrov. e^rjKovra Tprfpeai TreTrXv poo yj vats 
Gorgias can scarcely have been -qv^-qaev 'Adrjvaiois rb vavruebv. Tin' 1 
more than seventy in 411 B.C. Blass speech of Lysias irepl rys 'AvTicpQu- 
would place the birth of Gorgias ros Ovyarpbs (psendo-Plnt. Vitt, X. 
"a few years" below 496 (Att. Oratt.) referred to his daughter. 
Bereds. p. 45). Clinton suggests II. Antiphon the tragedian, put 
485 (sub aim. 427). to death by Dionysius the elder, 

3 He is often distinguished as the towards the end of his reign, i.e. 
" Rhamnusian " from namesakes. about 370 B.C.: Arist. llhet. ii. 6. 
Of these there are especially three The anonymous biographer says of 
with whom his ancient biographers the orator, rpayepdias eiroiei, : and 
— the pseudo - Plutarch, Philostra- Philostratus describes him as put 
tus, Photius (cod. 259), and the to death by Dionysius for criti- 
anonymous author of the yevos Xv- rising his tragedies. III. Antiphon 
TL<f>copTos — frequently confuse him. the Sophist, introduced by Xeno- 
I. The Antiphon who was put to phon as disputing with Socrates, 
death by the Thirty Tyrants, seven Memor. I. 6. 1. Diogenes calls him 
years after the orator's death : T€parocr/c67ros (soothsayer), Suidas, 
Xen. Hell en. in. 40. He had fur- bveipoKpn-qs — by which title he is 
nished two triremes at his own often referred to. Hermogenes ex- 
cost during the war : and of him pressly distinguishes him from the 


altogether obscure, since it was made a reproach 
to him on his trial that his grandfather had been 
a partisan of the Peisistraticlae. 1 The tradition that 
his father Sophilus was a sophist antedates by a 
generation the appearance of that class of teachers, 2 
and may have been suggested simply by the jingle of 
the words. 3 Antiphon himself, as the style of his 
composition indicates, must have felt the sophistic 
influence ; but there is no evidence for his having 
been the pupil of any particular sophist. He is 
allowed by general consent to have been the first Antiphon 
representative at Athens of a profession for which \oyo- 
the new conditions of the time had just begun to ypa ° s ' 
make a place, — the first Xoyoypdcjx)*;, or writer of 
speeches for money. 4 With the recent growth of 
Ehetoric as a definite art, the inequality, for purposes 
of pleading or debating, between men who had and 
who had not mastered the newly-invented weapons 
of speech had become seriously felt. A rogue skilled 
in the latest subtleties of argument and graces of 
style was now more than ever formidable to the 
plain man whom he chose to drag before a court or 
to attack in the ecclesia : and those who had no 
leisure or taste to become rhetoricians now began to 
find it worth while to buy their rhetoric ready-made. 
Forensic speeches were, no doubt, those with which 
Antiphon most frequently supplied his clients. But 

orator {irepi loewv, n. 497) ; but they 3 Donalds., note, ibid. 

are confused by the pseudo-Plut. and 4 [Plut,] Vitt. X. Oratt. \6yovs 

by Photius. crvveypa-^e irpCoros iirl tovto rpairels, 

1 Harpocration s. v. aTao-iwTrjs. ibairep rives cpacri. Diod. ap. Clem. 

:•. 2 K. 0. Midler, Hist. Gr. Lit. Alex. Strom, i. 365, irpurov ducavi- 

c. xxxill., Vol. ii. p. 105, ed. Donald- kov \6yov els eKdoaiv ypa^paiievov. 


Hermogenes 1 describes him as " the inventor and 
founder of the political style/' — a phrase including 
deliberative as well as forensic oratory : and this 
exactly agrees with the statement of Thucydides 
that Antiphon was practised in aiding, not only 
those who had lawsuits, but debaters in the ecclesia. 2 
Besides being a speech-writer, he was also a teacher 
of rhetoric, and, as the allusion in the Menexenus 3 
implies, the most fashionable master of Plato's time 
Antiphon at Athens. The tradition that Thucydides was the 

andThucy- J 

dides. pupil of Antiphon may have been suggested by the 
warmth and emphasis of the passage in which the 
orator is mentioned by the historian ; 4 a passage 
which, in its sudden glow of a personal admiration, 
recalls two others in the History — the tribute to the 
genius of Themistocles, and the character of Pericles. 
In the tradition itself there is nothing improbable, 
but it wants the support of evidence. The special 
relation of master to pupil need not be assumed to 
account for a tone which congeniality of literary 

1 Hermog. Trepi Id. n. p. 415, 'Avtlc^Cov. Ruhnken (Disp. de Ant.) 
Xeyerac ... €vpeT7]s ical dpxv7 0S yeve- says that some mss. have 8i8d<j- 
o~6ai rod rvirov rod ttoKltlkov. By kcl\ov instead of juadr/rrjv here : 
irdXiTiKol \6yoL, as distinguished Blass suggests Ka$7)yrjrr}v. Hermo- 
froni dcaXeKTiKr), were meant both genes (7rept Id. n. 497) refers to 
crv/ApovXevTiKoi and diKaviKoi : see the tradition as one which "many" 
Isocr. Kara <ro<t>. § 20. receive ; but rejects it for the in- 

2 Time. viii. Q8, rovs dycovifrfAe- adequate reason that the style of 
vovs /cat iv diKaarTjpiop /cat 4v drjticp Thucydides resembles that of Anti- 
...dvva[xevos uxpeXelv. phon the Sophist (see note above) 

3 Plat. Mencx, p. 236 A. rather than that of Antiphon the 

4 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. KaiKiXios orator. In Bishop Thirlwall's re- 
8e (Caecilius of Calacte, the Greek marks (c. xxviii. Vol. iv. p. 23 note, 
rhetorician of the time of Angus- ed. 1855) I entirely concur. Ruhn- 
tus) h r<2 ire pi avrov avvrdyiiari ken's "satis, ni fallor, demonstravi- 
Qovkv8l8ou rod auyypa(pecjs (viii. mus Thucydidem ab Antiphonte esse 
68.) fjLadyjrrjp reKfiaiperai yeyovi- eruditum," is surely not justified by 
vai, it; &v eiraiveirai Trap' avru? b his reasonings. 


taste, 1 common sufferings at the hands of the demo- 
cracy, or perhaps personal friendship, would sufficiently 

Nothing is directly known of Antiphon's political Antiphon's 
relations before the year 411 B.C. ; but there are b.c. 
slight indications which agree well with his later 
hostility to the democracy. Harpocration has pre- 
served the names of two speeches written by him, 
one for the people of Samothrace, on the subject of 
the tribute which they paid to Athens ; another, 
on the same subject, for the people of Lindus in 
Ehodes. 2 The oppression of the subject-allies by the 
demagogues, who extorted from them large sums on 
any pretence or threat, was a commonplace of com- 
plaint with oligarchs. 8 ,The employment of Anti- 
phon, afterwards so staunch an oligarch, by aggrieved 
allies, preparing to represent their grievances at the 
imperial city, was perhaps more than an accident of 
professional routine. The hostility of Antiphon to 
Alcibiades, 4 again, need not have had any political 
meaning ; but it would have been especially natural 

1 See below, cli. II. pp. 23 ff., on wards him : ev be rals 'XvtiQGjvtos 

the affinity between the styles of \oc8opiais yey pairraL. These Xot- 

Antiphon and Thucydides. bopiat would seem to have formed 

' 2 Harpocration quotes five times a sort of polemical pamphlet. But 
a speech of Antiphon irepl rov Athenaeus, on the other hand, 
ZafiodpaKuv (popov, spoken, as the quotes a statement made by Anti- 
fragments show, by their ambassador ; phon, ev r£ tear 'AXKifiiddov \oibopias 
and in ten places refers to another (Atlien. xn. 525 r>). This would 
Trepl rov Aivblwv <popov. seem to have been a speech in a 

:} See, e.g., Ar. Vcsp. 669 ff. SUr) KaKyyopias (Bern. Conon. § 18), 

4 Plutarch {Ale. c. 3) quotes for which Xotdopia is used as a con- 

Antiphon as the authority for a vertible term : cf. Ar. Vesp. 1207, 

discreditable story about Alcibiades ; el\ov bidoKwv Xoidopias. Sauppe thinks 

and goes on to say that it must be that the mistake is with Athenaeus, 

received with caution, on account not with Plutarch. See Blass. Ait. 

of Antiphon's avowed enmity to- Bcrcds. p. 95. 


in one who had shared the views, and who mourned 
the fate, of Nicias. At all events, the words of 
Thucydides give a vivid idea of the position held at 
Athens by Antiphon just before the Revolution of 
the Four Hundred. His abilities were acknowledged. 
but they were exerted only for others ; he himself 
came forward neither in the assembly, nor — "when 
he could help it " 1 — in the law courts ; he lay under 
the suspicion of the people for "cleverness." The 
nature of the "cleverness" (Setvor^) for which Anti- 
phon was distrusted and disliked is sufficiently illus- 
trated by his Tetralogies. It was the art of fighting 
a cause which could hardly be defended on any broad 
ground bv raising in succession a number of more or 
less fine points. The indignant bewilderment ex- 
pressed by the imaginary prosecutor in the Second 
Tetralogy 2 on finding the common-sense view of the 
case turned upside-down represents what many a 
citizen of the old school must have felt when he 
encountered, in the ecclesia or the law-court, a client 
of the ingenious " speech - writer. 7 ' Antiphon was a. 
cautious, patient man. The comic poets could ridicule 
him for his poverty or his avarice ; 3 they could say 
that the speeches which he sold for great sums were 
" framed to defeat justice " ; 4 but a carefully obscure 
life probably offered no hold to any more definite 
attack. Meanwhile he was quietly at work with the 

1 Time. VIII. 68, ovd' is aWov 4 Philostratus, p. 17, KadairreTcu r t 
ayajva £kov<jios ovdeva. Kcop.ipdia rod '' X.vtl<PQivtos Cos Oetvov rd 

2 Tetr. II. r ad init. dtKaviKa /cat \6yovs /card toO diKaiov 

3 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Graft. Ketcoojau)- tvyKeijj.iEvovs d-rrodtdofjieuov 7ro\\a}i> 
8r)TCU <5' els (pi\apyvplav Viro IlXdrcouos xPVI u v- T(jJl/ clvtoTs juAXtara rots klvgv- 
iv U.€L<rdp5pif. vevovenv. 



oligarchic clubs. According to Thucydides he was 
not merely the arch-plotter of the Eevolution. He 
was the man who "had thought about it longest." 

In the spring of 411 B.C. the opportunity for The Rev 
which Antiphon had been waiting at last came. 
Alcibiades, by promises of Persian aid, induced the 
oligarchs in the army at Samos to commence a move- 
ment for the overthrow of the Athenian democracy. 
Peisander, as their representative, came to Athens, 
and, by insisting on the hopelessness of the war 
without such help as Alcibiades covenanted to bring, 
extorted from the ecclesia a vote for that change of 
constitution which the exile demanded. Having 
visited the various oligarchical clubs in the city 
and urged them to combine in favour of the project, 
Peisander went back to confer with Alcibiades. 
When he presently returned to Athens, — with the 
knowledge that his hopes from Persia were idle, but 
that, on the other hand, the Eevolution must go 
on, — he found a state of things very different from 
that which he had left. He had left the people just 
conscious that an oligarchy was proposed, and con- 
senting, in sheer despair, to entertain the idea ; but, 
at the same time, openly and strongly averse to it, 
and in a temper which showed that the real diffi- 
culties of the undertaking; were to come. He now T 
finds that, in the brief interval of his absence, every 
difficulty has already vanished. Not a trace of open 
opposition remains in the senate or in the ecclesia ; 
not a murmur is heard in the conversation of the 
citizens. 1 It is a fair inference from the words of 

1 Time. vin. 65. 66. 


Thucydides that the principal agent in producing this 
rapid and wonderful change had been Antiphon. 1 A 
brief consideration of the task which he had to do, 
and of the manner in which it was done, will supply 
the best criterion of his capacity. He had, first, to 
bring into united and disciplined action those oli- 
garchical clubs to which Peisander had appealed. 
These are described as "leagues with a view to law- 
suits and to offices " ; - that is, associations of which 
the members were pledged by oath to support, per- 
sonally and with funds, any one of their body who 
brought, or defended, a civil action, or who sought 
one of the offices of the State. When, with the 
steady advance of democracy from the Persian wars 
onwards, the oligarchs found themselves more and 
more in a minority, such associations became their 
means of concentrating and economising their one 
great power — wealth. The tone of such clubs would 
always be, in a general way, antipopular. But they 
were unaccustomed to systematic action for great 
ends ; and, in regard to those smaller ends which 
they ordinarily pursued, their interests would, from 
the nature of the case, frequently conflict. Antiphon 
need not have had much difficulty in proving to 
them that, on this occasion, they had a common 
interest. But to make them effective as well as 
unanimous ; to restrain, without discouraging, the 
zeal of novices in a political campaign, and to make 
of these a compact and temperate force, loyally taking 
the word from the best men among them, and so 

1 Cf. Grote, ch.LXil. ; Curtius, Hist. 2 ^vvojfxoaias iirl diKcus /ecu dp- 

Ch\ Vol. in. p. 435 (Ward's transl.). %a??, Time. viu. 54. 


executing the prescribed manoeuvres that in a short 
time they were completely ascendant over an enor- 
mous and hostile, but ill -organised majority, — this, 
assuredly, was the achievement of no ordinary leader. 
The absence of overt, and the skilful use of secret, 
violence was the characteristic of the Revolution. 
Adverse speakers were not menaced, but they dis- 
appeared ; until apparent unanimity, and real terror, 
had silenced every objection. Antiphon had seen 
clearly how the Athenian instinct of reverence for 
constitutional forms might be used against the con- 
stitution. His too, on the showing of Thucydides, 
must have been that clever invention, the imaginary 
body of Five Thousand to whom the franchise was to 
be left ; a fiction which, to the end, did service to 
the oligarchs by giving them a vague prestige for 

The Council of the Four Hundred comprised The 


. . parties 

two distinct elements, — those thorough oligarchs m the 
who had been the core of the conspiracy ; and a 
number of other men, more or less indifferent to 
the ideas of oligarchy, who had accepted the Revolu- 
tion because they believed that it alone could save 
Athens. Had the new Government been able to 
conciliate or to frighten the army at Samos, both 
sorts of men would have been satisfied, and the 
Council would have gone on working, for a time 
at least, as a seemingly harmonious whole. But 
the resolute hostility of the army, which at once 
made the case of the Four Hundred really hopeless, 
brought the discord to light forthwith. The Council 
was thenceforth divided into an Extreme and a 


Moderate party. Among the leaders of the Ex- 
treme party were Peisander, Phrynichus, Aristar- 
chus, Arclieptolemus, Onomacles and Antiphon. 
The Moderates were led by Theramenes and 
Aristocrates. Two chief questions were in dispute 
between the parties. The Moderates wished to 
call into political life the nominal civic body of 
Five Thousand; the ultra - oligarchs objected that 
it was better, at such a crisis, to avoid all chance 
of a popular rising. The ultra -oligarchs were forti- 
fying Eetioneia, alleging the danger of an attack 
from Samos ; the Moderates accused them of wish- 
ing to receive Peloponnesian troops. 

The Extreme party was soon driven, in May 
411 B.C., to the last resource of an embassy to 
Sparta. Phrynichus, Antiphon, Arclieptolemus, 
Onomacles and eight others 1 were sent " to make 
terms with the Lacedaemonians in any way that 
could at all be borne." 2 Thucydides does not say 
what the envoys offered at Sparta or what answer 
they got ; but he states plainly the length which 
he conceives that their party was ready to go. 
" They wished, if possible, having their oligarchy, 
at the same time to rule the allies ; if that could 
not be, to keep their ships, their walls, and their 
independence ; or, if shut out even from this, at 
all events not to have their own lives taken first 
and foremost by the people on its restoration ; 

1 Time. yiii. 90, 'AvTHpwvTCL kclI V'dt. X. Oratt. 

Qpvvixov kclI dWovs dew. That 2 Time, ih, iravrl rpowoj 6<ttls 

Arclieptolemus and Onomacles were /cat oirujouv dv euros £vva\\o.- 

on the embassy appears from [Pint.] yrjvai rpbs rovs Act/ce5cu/xoiuoi's. 


sooner would they bring in the enemy and covenant 
to keep the city on any terms, without wall or 
ships, if only their persons should be safe." 1 

This embassy brought the unpopularity of the Fail of the 

-^ • • T T 1 1 • Four ^ im 

ii/xtreme party to a crisis. Immediately upon his dmi. 
return Phrynichus was assassinated. The revolt 
of the citizens employed in fortifying Eetioneia 
quickly followed. The assembly in the Anakeion, 
broken up by the sudden appearance of the Pelo- 
ponnesian fleet, met again on the Pnyx soon after 
the Peloponnesian victory at Oropus ; and the Four 
Hundred, who had taken office in March, were 
deposed about the middle of June, 

The leading ultra - oligarchs hastened to save 
themselves by flight. Peisander, Alexicles and 
others went to Deceleia ; Aristarchus, taking with 
him a body of bowmen, contrived to betray Oenoe 
on the Athenian frontier into the hands of the 
Boeotians who were besieging it. But, of the 
twelve who had formed the embassy, and who now, 
before all others, were in peril, three remained at 
Athens — Antiphon, Archeptolemus and Onomacles. 
An information against these three men was laid 
before the ecclesia by the Generals. The eisan- 
gelia charged them with having gone on an embassy 

to Sparta for mischief to Athens, sailing, on their 
way thither, in an enemy's ship, and traversing the 
enemy's camp at Deceleia. A psephism was passed 
by the ecclesia directing the arrest of the accused 
that they might be tried by a dicastery, and 
instructing the Thesmothetae to serve each of 

1 Time. viii. 91. 


them, on the day following the issue of the decree, 
with a formal summons. On the day fixed by 
the summons the Thesmothetae were to bring the 
cases into court ; and the Generals, assisted by 
such Synegori, not more than ten in number, as 
they might choose from the Council of the Five 
Hundred, were to prosecute for treason. 1 
Trial and Onomacles seems to have escaped or died before 

tion of An- the day. Archeptolemus and Antiphon w T ere brought 
ip ° n * to trial. The scanty fragments of the speech made 
by Antiphon in his own defence reveal only one item 
of its contents. One of the prosecutors, Apolexis, 
having asserted that Antiphon's grandfather had 
been a partisan of the Peisistratidae, Antiphon re- 
plied that his grandfather had not been punished 
after the expulsion of the tyrants, and could scarcely, 
therefore, have been one of their "body-guard." 2 
The other special topics are unknown ; but their 
range, at least, is shown by the title under which 
the speech was extant. It was inscribed irepl fiera- 

1 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. "body, and that, therefore, either 

2 Harpocr. s.v. o-rao-icor^s (Sauppe, all ought to be punished or all 
Or. Att. ii. p. 138). 'kvTicpuv h r<2 acquitted." He observes that "re- 
7r€pl ttjs /uL€Ta(TT&(T€oos' iT e pi toLvvv ference seems to be made to an 


'AttoXti^is KCLT7}y6pr]Kei> us unjustifiable separation of the parties 

o-Taaid)T7]s 9jv eyu kcll 6 Trair- involved: this is indicated by the 

iros 6 ipios' eoLKe vvv 6 prjrcop distinction drawn between the rvpav- 

Idiojs e7rt rod 8opv<popov KexprjcQcu vol and the dopv<f>6poi.' It is very 

rco ovofidTL' iv yovv rots e^s <fyq- likely that Antiphon may have used 

a iv ore ovk av tovs fxev rvpav- this argument: but I do not see 

vovvras 7]bvv7]9rjaav ol irpoyovoi how it is to be inferred from the 

Ko\do-ai, rovs 5e dopvepopovs rjdv- fragments of the speech rrepl rrjs 

vaTTjaav. /zeracrraVews that he used it. The 

Curtius (Hist Gr. Vol. in. p. 460, distinction between the rvpavvot 

transl. Ward) infers from this frag- and the dopvcpopoL is made, as a 

ment that Antiphon in his speech perusal of the fragment will show, 

argued " that the Four Hundred had solely in reference to the Peisistra- 

acted as one equally responsible tidae. 


o-Tdo-eaxs, On the Change of Government. It dealt, 
then, not merely with the matter specified in the 
eisangelia — the embassy to Sparta — but with the 
whole question of the Kevolution. It is described 
by Thucydides as the greatest defence made in the 
memory of that age by a man on trial for his life. 
The story in the Eudemian Ethics/ whether true or 
not, seems at any rate characteristic. Agathon, the 
tragic poet, praised the speech ; and Antiphon — on 
whom sentence of death had passed — answered that 
a man who respects himself must care more what 
one good man thinks than what is thought by many 

The sentence ran thus : — 

" Found guilty of treason — Archeptolemus son of 
Hippodamus, of Agryle, being present : Antiphon 
son of Sophilus, of Ehamnus, being present. The 
award on these two men was — That they be de- 
livered to the Eleven : that their property be con- 
fiscated and the goddess have the tithe : that their 
houses be razed and boundary-stones put on the sites, 
with the inscription, 'the houses of Archeptolemus 
and Antiphon the traitors : ' that the two demarchs 
[of Agryle and Ehamnus] shall point out their houses. 
That it shall not be lawful to bury Archeptolemus 
and Antiphon at Athens or in any land of which the 
Athenians are masters. That Archeptolemus and 
Antiphon and their descendants, bastard or true- 
born, shall be infamous; and if a man adopt any 

1 Eth. Eudcm. III. 5, /cat fiSXKov rvyx&vovaiv, Cbcnrep 'Avrupuv e<p7] 
hv <j>povTlff€i€v &V7)P fieya\6\l/vxos tL trpbs 'Ay&Buva Kare^ioy^os tt>v 
5ok€? ivi <nrovdaiip fj woWoh ro?s dwoXoyiav iwcuvio-avTa. 

of Anti- 


one of the race of Areheptolemus or Antiphon, let 
the adopter be infamous. That this decree be 
written on a brazen column and put in the same 
place where the decrees about Phrynichus are 
set up." * 
character The distinctive feature in the life of Antiphon is 

the suddenness of his appearance, at an advanced 
age, in the very front of Athenian politics. Unlike 
nearly all the men associated with him, he had 
neither made his mark in the public service nor 
come forward in the ecclesia ; yet all at once he 
becomes the chief, though not the most conspicuous, 
organiser of an enterprise requiring in the highest 
degree trained political tact ; does more than any 
other individual to set up a new government ; and 
acts to the last as one of its foremost members. The 
reputation and the power which enabled him to take 
this part were mainly literary. Yet it would not 
probably be accurate to conceive Antiphon as a 
merely literary man who suddenly emerged and 
succeeded as a politician. It would have been a 
marvel, indeed, if any one had become a leader on 
the popular side in Athenian politics who had not 
already been prominent in the ecclesia. But the 
accomplishments most needed in a leader of the 
oligarchic party might be learned elsewhere than in 
the ecclesia. The member of a eTaipela, though a 
stranger to the bema, might gain practice in the 
working of those secret and rapid combinations upon 
which his party had come to rely most in its unequal 
struggle with democracy. As fame and years by 

1 [Pint.] Vitt. X. Oratt. 



degrees brought Antiphon more and more weight in 
the internal management of the oligarchic clubs, 
he would acquire more and more insight into the 
tactics of which at last he proved himself a master. 1 
He need not, then, be taken as an example of in- 
stinct supplying the want of training : he had prob- 
ably had precisely the training which could serve 
him best. The real significance of his late and sudden 
prominence lies in its suggestion of previous self- 
control. No desire of place, no consciousness of 
growing pow r er, had tempted him to stir until in his 
old age he knew that the time had come and that all 
the threads were in his hand. 

The ability which Antiphon brought to the cimractei 
service 01 his party is denned as the power evOv^rjOrjvat ability. 
kclI a ypocT] elirelv. It was the power of a subtle and 
quick mind backed by a thorough command of the 
new rhetoric. He w r as masterly in device and in 
utterance. Fertility of expedient, ingenuity in mak- 
ing points in debate, were the qualities which the 
oligarchs most needed ; and it was in these that the 
strength of Antiphon lay. In promptness of inven- 
tion where difficulties were to be met on the instant 
he probably bore some likeness to Themistocles ; but 

1 "By far the larger number of "fashion" which I have been able to 

the members of the party belonged find is [Pint.] Vitt. X. Oratt. : irpQros 

to the sophistically-trained younger 8e /cat pijropLKas rex^as iijrjveyKe, yevo- 

generation...who greedily imbibed fxevos ayx'ivovs' 8tb /cat XeVrw/) eire- 

the political teaching communicated /caXetro. As this notice makes the 

to them at the meetings of the party name "Nestor" refer simply to 

by Antiphon, the Nestor of his party, rhetorical skill, not to political 

as it was the fashion] to call him." sagacity, I have hesitated to follow 

(Curtius, Hist. Gr. in. p. 435, transl. Curtius in his picturesque application 

Ward.) of it. 

The only authority for this 


there is no reason for crediting him with that large- 
ness of view, or with any share of that wonderful 
foresight, which made Themistocles a statesman as 
well as a diplomatist. 
msaper^. Thucydides praises Antiphon not only for his 

ability but, with equal emphasis, for his apery, his 
virtue. The praise may be interpreted by what 
Thucydides himself says elsewhere about the moral 
results of the intense conflicts between oligarchy 
and democracy. 1 The apery, precious as rare, of a 
public man was to be a loyal partisan ; to postpone 
personal selfishness to the selfishness of party ; to be 
proof against bribes ; and at the worst not to flinch, 
or at least not to desert. Thucydides means that 
of the men who brought about the Revolution Antiphon 
was perhaps the most disinterested and the most 
constant. He had taken previously no active part 
in public affairs, and was therefore less involved than 
such men as Peisancler and Phrynichus in personal 
relations : his life had been to some extent that of 
a student : he had never put himself forward for 
office : he seems, to judge from his writings, to have 
really believed and felt that old Attic religion 
which at least the older school of oligarchs professed 
to cherish : and thus altogether might be considered 
as the most unselfishly earnest member of his party, 
the man who cared most for its ideas. In this 
measure he was disinterested : he was also constant. 
When the Council fell, he could, no doubt, have 
escaped with Peisander and the rest. Considering 
his long unpopularity, and the fact that he would 

1 Time. in. 82. 

e new 

power of 



be assumed to have been the chief spokesman of the 
odious embassy to Sparta, his condemnation was per- 
haps more certain than that of any other person. 
But he stood his ground : and for the last time put 
out all his strength in a great defence of the fallen 

In a general view of Antiphon's career there is t 
one aspect which ought not to be missed — that aspect Rhetor 
in which it bears striking evidence to the growing 
importance in Athenian public life of the newly- 
developed art of Rhetoric. Antiphon's first and 
strongest claim to eminence was his mastery over 
the weapons now indispensable in the ecclesia and 
the law-courts ; it was this accomplishment, no less 
fashionable than useful, which recommended him to 
the young men of his party whom he had no other 
pretension to influence ; it was this rhetorical heivoT^ 
to which he owed his efficiency in the Revolution. 
In his person the practical branch of the new culture 
for the first time takes a distinct place among the 
qualifications for political rank. The Art of Words 
had its definite share in bringing in the Four Hun- 
dred : it was a curious nemesis when seven years 
later it was banished from Athens by the Thirty. 

vol. 1 



Antipiioii Antiphox stands first among the orators of the 

the most . . *" . 

antique of Attic canon ; and he claims this place not merely 
because he was born a few years earlier than any one 
of the rest. A broad difference separates him from 
those who were nearly his contemporaries hardly 
less than from men of the next century, from Ando- 
cides and Lysias as well as from Demosthenes and 
Hypereides. He represents older ideas and an older 
conception of the manner in which these ideas are to 
find expression. His successors, taken collectively, 
are moderns ; compared with them, he is ancient. 
The begin- The outburst of intellectual life in Hellas during 
Greek the fifth century before Christ had for one of its 
results the creation of Greek prose. Before that age 
no Greek had conceived artistic composition except 
in the form of poetry. The Ionians who had already 
recorded myths or stated philosophies in prose had 
either made no effort to rise above the ease of daily 
talk, or had clothed their meaning in a poetical dic- 
tion of the most ambitious kind. As the mental 
horizon of Greece was widened, as subtler ideas and 

chap, ii ANTIPHON— STYLE 19 

more various combinations began to ask for closer 
and more flexible expression, the desire grew for 
something more precise than poetry, firmer and more 
compact than the idiom of conversation. Two 
special causes aided this general tendency. The 
development of democratic life, making the faculty of 
speech before popular assemblies and popular law- 
courts a necessity, hastened the formation of an 
oratorical prose. The Persian Wars, by changing 
Hellenic unity from a sentiment into a fact, and re- 
minding men that there was a corporate life, higher 
and grander than that of the individual city, of which 
the story might be told, supplied a new motive to 
historical prose. Athens under Pericles became the 
focus of all the feelings which demanded this new 
utterance, and of all the capabilities which could 
make the utterance artistic. The Athenian mind, 
with its vigour, its sense of measure, its desire for 
clearness, was fitted to achieve the special excel- 
lences of prose, 1 and moulded that Attic dialect in 
which the prose-writer at last found his most perfect 
instrument. But the process of maturing the new 
kind of composition w^as necessarily slow ; for it 
required, as its first condition, little less than the 
creation of a new r language, of an idiom neither 
poetical nor mean. Herodotus, at the middle point 
of the fifth century, shows the poetical element still 
preponderant. The close of that century may be 
taken as the 3nd of the first great stage in the 
growth of a rrose literature. If a line is drawn 
there, Lysias will be perhaps the first representative 

1 See Curti is, Hist. Gr. Vol. n. p. 517, transl. Ward. 


name below it : Antiphon and Thucyclides will be 
among the last names above it. 
character The leading characteristic of the earlier prose is 

Prose. dignity. The newly created art has the continual 
consciousness of being an art. It is always on its 
guard against sliding into the levity of a conversa- 
tional style. The composer feels above all things 
that his written language must be so chosen as to 
produce a greater effect than would be produced 
by an equivalent amount of extemporary speaking. 
Every word is to be pointed and pregnant ; every 
phrase is to be the condensed expression of his 
thought in its ultimate shape, however difficult this 
may be to the reader or hearer who meets it in that 
shape for the first time ; the movement of the whole 
is to be slow and majestic, impressing by its weight 
and grandeur, not charming by its life and flow. 
The prose-writer of this epoch instinctively compares 
himself with the poet. The poet is a craftsman, the 
possessor of a mystery revealed to the many only in 
the spell which it exerts over their fancies ; just 
so, in the beginnings of a literary prose, its shaper 
likes to think that he belongs to a guild. He does 
not care to be simply right and clear : rather he 
desires to have the whole advantage which his skill 
gives him over ordinary men ; he is eager to bring 
his thoughts down upon them with a splendid and 
irresistible force. In Greece this character, natural 
to immature prose, was intensified bj a special cause 
— the influence of the Sophists. In so far as these 
teachers dealt with the form of language, they tended 
to confirm that view of the prose-writer in w^hich he 


is a professional expert dazzling and overawing lay- 
men. The Sophists of Hellas Proper dwelt especially 
on the minute prbprieties of language, as Protagoras 
on correct grammatical forms 1 and Prodicus on the 
accurate use of synonyms ; 2 the Sophists of Sicily 
taught its technical graces. 3 In this last respect the 
teaching of Gorgias. was thoroughly reactionary, and 
was calculated to hinder the growth of a good prose 
just at the critical point. At the moment when prose 
was striving to disengage itself from the diction of 
poetry, Gorgias gave currency to the notion that 
poetical ornament of the most florid type was its 
true charm. When, indeed, he went further, and 
sought to imitate the rhythm as well as the phrase 
of poetry, this very extravagance had a useful result. 
Prose has a rhythm, though not of the kind at which 
Gorgias aimed ; and the mere fact of the Greek ear 
becoming accustomed to look for a certain proportion 
between the parts of a sentence hastened the transi- 
tion from the old running style to the periodic. 

Dionysius has described vividly the characteristics Dionysius 
of that elder school of composition to which Antiphon "austere' 

belonged. He distinguishes three principal styles, the 
austere, the smooth and the middle. 4 He cites poets, 

1 opdoeTreia, Plat. Phaedr. p. 267 c. Graeci opdoeireLav, Siculi eveireiav 

2 opdoT-qs ovo/ndrcov, Plat. Euthyd. elaborabant. " 

p. 277 E. On the work of Protagoras 4 ava-rrjpd, yXafivpd and kolvt} (or 

and Prodicus in these departments, fieai]) dp/uovia : Dionys. irepl avvd. 

see Mr. Cope in the Journal of ovofi. cc. 22, 23, 24. The three 

Classical and Sacred Philology, vol. dpfxoviai, or styles of composition, 

in. pp. 48-57. distinguished by Dionysius, must 

3 Spengel, 2u*>aY. rexv&v, p. 63 : not be confused with the three Xe^eis, 
1 ' Omnino Graeci sophistae, et quos or styles of diction, which he dis- 
diximus, et alii minus noti, recte et tinguishes in his essay on Demo- 
dilucide eloqui studebant ; et si uno sthenes, cc. 1—3. The dpixovlai refer, 
vocabulo omnia comprehendamus, of course, to the putting together of 



historians and orators who are examples of each. 
Among orators Antiphon is his representative of the 
austere style, Isocrates of the smooth, Demosthenes 
of the middle. The austere style is thus described : 2 

" It wishes its separate words to be planted firmly 
and to have strong positions, so that each word may 
be seen conspicuously ; it wishes its several clauses to 
be well divided from each other by sensible pauses. 
It is willing to admit frequently rough and direct 
clashings of sounds, meeting like the bases of stones 
in loose wall- work, which have not been squared or 
smoothed to fit each other, but which show a certain 
negligence and absence of forethought. It loves, as a 
rule, to prolong itself by large words of portly breadth. 
Compression by short syllables is a thing which it 
shuns when not absolutely driven to it. 

" As regards separate words, these are the objects 
of its pursuit and craving. In whole clauses it shows 
these tendencies no less strongly ; especially it chooses 
the most dignified and majestic rhythms. It does 
not wish the clauses to be like each other in length 
of structure, or enslaved to a severe syntax, but noble, 
simple, free. It wishes them to bear the stamp of nature 
rather than that of art, and to stir feeling rather than 
to reflect character. It does not usually aim at corn- 

words ; the \e£eis, to the choice of plion and Isaeus, in respect to \e&s, 
words. As to \e£eis, Dionysins re- he says merely that there was no- 
cognises (1) an elaborate diction, thing "novel" or '•.striking" hi 
which employs farfetched and un- their choice of words. {Dcmosth. c. 
usual words, e^Way juevr), irepiTTr) 8.) Probably he would have regarded 
Ae£is, of which Thucydides is the them as intermediate in \e&s between 
great example : (2) a smooth and Thucydides and Lysias, but as re- 
plain diction, Xlttj, afeXrjs Xe&s, best presenting the compromise in a less 
represented by Lysias : (3) a mixed mature and finished form than 
diction, /nLKTrj /ecu crvvderos Ae£ts, of Isocrates. 
which the type is Isocrates. Of Anti- : Dionys. ire pi avvd. ovop.. c. 22. 


posing periods as a compact framework for its thought ; 
but, if it should ever drift undesignedly into the 
periodic style, it desires to set on this the mark of 
spontaneity and plainness. It does not employ, in 
order to round a sentence, supplementary words 
which do not help the sense ; it does not care that the 
march of its phrase should have stage-glitter or an 
artificial smoothness ; nor that the clauses should be 
separately adapted to the length of the speaker's 
breath. No indeed. Of all such industry it is 
innocent... It is fanciful in imagery, sparing of 
copulas, anything but florid ; it is haughty, straight- 
forward, disdainful of prettiness, with its antique air 
and its negligence for its beauty." 

It is important to remember that this description 
is applied to a certain kind of poetry as well as of 
prose, to Pindar and Aeschylus as well as to Thu- 
cydides and Antiphon ; and that, taken in reference to 
prose alone, it needs modification. It is not true, for 
instance, of the older prose that it always shrank from 
the display of artificialism. Negligent it often w^as ; 
but at other times it was consciously, ostentatiously 
artificial. Its general characteristics, however, are 
admirably given by Dionysius. It is dignified; it 
relies much on the weight of single words ; it is bold 
but not florid ; it aims at moving the hearer rather 
than at reflecting the character of the speaker. 
Antiphon, his representative orator, exemplifies these 
points clearly, — as will be seen better if he is com- 
pared from time to time with the critic's representative 
historian, Thucydides. 

In the first place, then, Antiphon is pre-eminently 


Antiphon's dignified and noble. He is to his successors generally 

style— its ° & J 

dignity. as Aeschylus to Euripides. The elder tragedy held 
its gods and heroes above the level of men by a 
colossal majesty of repose, by the passionless utterance 
of kingly thoughts ; and the same feeling to which 
these things seemed divine conceived its ideal orator 
as one who controls a restless crowd by the royalty of 
his calm power, by a temperate and stately eloquence. 
The speaker who wins his hearers by blandishments, 
who surprises them by adroit turns, who hurries them 
away on a torrent of declamation, belonged to a 
generation for which gods also and heroes declaimed 
or quibbled on the stage. Plutarch has described, not 
without a tinge of sarcasm, the language and de- 
meanour by which Pericles commanded the veneration 
of his age. 1 " His thoughts were awe-inspiring, 2 his 
language lofty, untainted by the ribaldry of the rascal 
crowd. His calm features, never breaking into 
laughter ; his measured step ; the ample robe which 
flowed around him and which nothing deranged ; his 
moving eloquence ; the tranquil modulation of his 
voice ; these things, and such as these, had over all 
men a marvellous spell." The biographer goes on to 
relate how Pericles was once abused by a coarse fellow 
in the market-place, bore it in silence until he had 
finished his business there, and when his persecutor 
followed him home, merely desired a slave to take a 
lantern and see the man home. 3 It is not probable that 

1 Plut. Per. c. 5. speculations " (juer€U}po\oyia) and 

2 aofiapbv. The word is openly " supramundane talk" (/uLeTapaioXe- 
sarcastic, and is meant by Plutarch o*x^ a ) with Anaxagoras. 

to describe a pompous tone which 3 loc. cit. 

Pericles took from "his sublime 


the receiver of the escort felt all the severity of the 
moral defeat which he had sustained ; and he is per- 
haps no bad representative of the Athenian democracy 
in its relations to the superb decorum 1 of the old 
school. Much of this decorum survives in Antiphon, 
who, in a literary as in a political sense, clung to 
traditions which were fading. Yet even in him the 
influence of the a^e is seen. The Tetralogies, written 
for practice, and in which he had to please no one 
but himself, are the most stately of his compositions. 
The speech On the Murder of Herodes is less so, even 
in its elaborate proem ; while part of the speech On 
the Choreutes, doubtless the latest of his extant works, 
shows a marked advance towards the freedom and 
vivacity of a newer style. It was in the hands of 
Antiphon that rhetoric first became thoroughly 
practical ; and for this very reason, conservative as he 
was, he could not maintain a rigid conservatism.. The 
public position which he had taken for his art could 
be held only by concessions to the public taste. 

Antiphon relies much on the full, intense signifi- Reliance 
cance of single words. This is, indeed, a cardinal words. 
point in the older prose. Its movement was slow ; each 
word was dropped with deliberation ; and now and 
then some important word, heavy with concentrated 
meaning, came down like a sledge-hammer. Take, 
for instance, the chapter in which Thucydides shows 
how party strife, like that in Corcyra, had the effect 

1 evKoa/nia. Aeschines says that Ctes. §2.) Cf. Dem. cle F. L. § 251 : 

Solon made regulations irepl tt}s tuv "He said that the sobriety {vweppo- 

prjTopuv evKoapLtas. The oldest citizen (rvvrj) of the popular speakers of that 

was to speak first in the assembly — day is illustrated by the statue of 

<Too(pp6vo4s eirl to /3^/xa 7rape\6u)v Solon with his cloak drawn round 

avev dopvfiov Kal rapaxv"!. (In him and his hand within the folds." 


of confusing moral distinctions. Blow on blow 
the nicely -balanced terms beat out the contrasts, 
until the ear is weary as with the clangour of an 
anvil. " Reckless daring was esteemed loyal courage, 
— prudent delay, specious cowardice ; temperance 
seemed a cloak for pusillanimity ; comprehensive 
sagacity was called universal indifference." 1 Ci Re- 
monstrance is for friends who err ; accusation for 
enemies who have done wrong." 2 In Antiphon's 
speech On the Murder of Herodes, the accused says 
(reminding the court that his case ought not to be 
decided until it has been heard before the Areio- 
pagus) : — " Be now, therefore, surveyors of the cause, 
but then, judges of the evidence, — now surmisers, but 
then deciders, of the truth." 3 And in the Second 
Tetralogy : — " Those who fail to do what they mean 
are agents of a mischance ; those who hurt, or are 
hurt, voluntarily, are authors of suffering." 4 Examples 
of this eagerness to press the exact meaning of words 
are frequent in Antiphon, though far less frequent 
than in Thucydides. It is evidently natural to that 
early phase of prose composition in which, newly 
conscious of itself as an art, it struggles to wrino* out 

1 Thuc. III. 82. Hermogenes {irepl dirb d/aaOias evrvxovs Kal deiXcp rivl 
Ideuv, I. cap. VI.) remarks that aepLvj] eyyiyverai, Kara<ppbv7]cn.s de os av 
\e^is depends more on bvbpiara, sub- Kal yvcbjuy irLare^rj tqjv ivavricov 
stan tives and adjectives, than on irpoex eiv ' 

prjp.ara, verbs. Thus, he says, in :; de caccl. Herod. § 94, vvv p.ev odv 

this sentence of Thucydides, the yvupiaral yiveade tt)s 8lkt)s, rbre be 

whole effect is wrought by the bvb- oiKaaral r£v juaprtipw vvv juev <5o£- 

fiara. And so verbal adjectives {dirb aural, rbre be Kptral rcov d\7]6u:v. 

p-rmarwv els ovofia TreTrocrjfieva) are 4 Tetral II. B. § 6, o'i re yap 

preferred to relative clauses with the a/maprdvovres &v av eTrivorjcrual n 

verb. {E.g. rbXfia aXbyiaros is ae/avb- bpdaat, ovroc irpanropes rCbv aKovaiwv 

repov than oaris roXfiuv ov Xoyiferai.) elaiv ol de eKovcnov ri bpCovres r) iraa- 

2 Thuc. I. 69. Another good in- X 0VT€ s, ouroi rwv Tradyj/mdrLov atrcoi 
stance is IT. 62, avxrifia /nev yap Kal yiyvovrai. 


of language a force strange to the ordinary idiom ; 
and in Greece this tendency must have been further 
strengthened by the stress which Gorgias laid on 
antithesis, and Prodicus on the discriminating of 
terms nearly synonymous. Only so long as slow and 
measured declamation remained in fashion could the 
orator attempt thus to put a whole train of thought 
into a single weighty word. What the old school 
sought to effect by one powerful word, the later 
school did by the free, rapid, brilliant development 
of a thought in all its fulness and with all the variety 
of contrasts which it pressed upon the mind. 

A further characteristic of the older style — that it Autipiion 

• p i • n - 1 » • is imagiua- 

is "fanciful m imagery, but by no means florid' — is tivetmt 
exemplified in Antiphon. The meaning of the anti- 
thesis is sufficiently clear in reference to Aeschylus 
and Pindar, the poets chosen by Dionysius as his 
instances. In reference to prose also it means a 
choice of images like theirs, bold, rugged, grand ; and 
a scorn, on the other hand, for small prettinesses, for 
showy colouring, for maudlin sentiment. The great 
representative in oratory of this special trait must 
have been Pericles. A few of his recorded expres- 
sions bear just this stamp of a vigorous and daring 
fancy ; — his description of Aegina as the " eyesore " of 
the Peiraeus ; * his saying that, in the slain youth of 
Athens, the year had lost its spring ; 2 his declaration, 
over the bodies of those who fell at Samos, that they 
had become even as the gods; "for the gods them- 
selves we see not, but infer their immortality from 
the honours paid to them and from the blessings 

3 Arist. lihct. in. 10. - lb., and 1. 7. 


which they bestow. 7 ' l The same imaginative boldness 
is found in Antiphon, though but rarely, and under 
severe control. " Adversity herself is wronged by the 
accused," he makes a prosecutor exclaim, "when he 
puts her forward to screen a crime and to withdraw 
his own villainy from view." 2 A father, threatened 
with the condemnation of his son, cries to the judges : 
— " I shall be buried with my son — in the living tomb 
of my childlessness." 3 But in Antiphon, as in Thucy- 
dides, the haughty, 4 careless freedom of the old style 
is shown oftener in the employment of new or unusual 
words or phrases. 5 The orator could not, indeed, go 
so far as the historian, who is expressly censured on 
this score by his Greek critic ; 6 but they have some 
expressions of the same character in common. 7 While 
Antiphon is sparing of imagery, he is equally moderate 
in the use of the technical figures of rhetoric. These 
have been well distinguished as " figures of language " 

(ar^rj^ara Xe^ea)?) and " figures of thought " (ijyfiixaTa 
liavoias) — the first class including various forms of 
assonance and of artificial symmetry between clauses ; 
the second including irony, abrupt pauses, feigned 
perplexity, rhetorical question and so forth. Caecilius 

1 Plut. Per. c. 8. remarks (ib. 51) that it was not a 

- Tetr. i. T. § 1. general fashion of the time, but a 

3 Tetr. ii. B. § 10 : cf. n. T. § 12. characteristic distinctive of him. 

4 iieya\b(pp(jov — av$€Ka<rros : Dionys. " The Thucydidean style may be 
Tepl avvd. ovofjL. c. 22. recognised, for instance, in Tetr. i. 

5 E.g. Tetr. I. V. § 10, ra lx vr \ T V S !• § 3, 77 aicx^V — aptcodcnx rjv aco- 
vTroipias : Tetr. I. A. § 10, tcl tx^V r ov (ppoviaai to dvjuov/nevou rrjs yvcbfjLrjs : 
(pbvov : Tetr. II. B. § 2, dvarpoTevs rod Herod. § 73, Kpeiaaov 8e XPV & 6 * 
olkov eyevero : Tetr. IV. T. § 2, <pt\o- yiyveadat to vjue'Tepov dvvd/aevop e/xe 
OvT-qs : Herod. § 78, x^pocpLXeiv ( = dt-Kaius awfciv rj to tQv ex^pCov /3ov- 
<f>i\ox^p^v). \6fievov ddlKOJS (xe diroWvvai : ib. § 84, 

6 Dionysius speaks of to KaTa- ol fxev 6X\ol avOpuirot. tocs ipyocs tovs 
yXwacrov tt)s \e£ecos kclI ^evov in \6yovs eXeyxovcriv, ovtol be toIs Xoyois 
Thucydides (de Thue, c. 53), and '^yyrovai tcl epya awicrTa KadiUTdvai, 


of Calacte, the author of this distinction, was a student 
of Antiphon, and observed that the " figures of thought" 
are seldom or never used by him. 1 The figures of 
language all occur, but rarely. 2 Blass 3 and K. 0. 
Miiller 4 agree in referring this marked difference 
between the older and later schools of oratory — the 
absence, in the former, of those lively figures so 
abundant in the latter — to an essential change which 
passed upon Greek character in the interval. It was 
only when fierce passion and dishonesty had become 
strong traits of a degenerate national character that 
vehemence and trickiness came into oratory. This 
seems a harsh and scarcely accurate judgment. It 
appears simpler to suppose that the conventional 
stateliness of the old eloquence altogether precluded 
such vivacity as marked the later ; and that the 
mainspring of this new vivacity was merely the 
natural impulse, set free from the restraints of the 
older style, to give arguments their most spirited and 
effective form. 

Nothing in the criticism of Dionysius on the Pathos ami 
" austere" style is more appreciative than his remark, Antiphon. 
that it aims rather at pathos than at ethos. That 
is, it addresses itself directly to the feelings ; but 
does not care to give a subtle persuasiveness to its 
words by artistically adjusting them to the character 
and position of the person who is supposed to speak 
them. It is tragic ; yet it is not dramatic. There 
has never, perhaps, been a greater master of stern 

1 Caecilius ap. Phot. Cod. 259, :] Att. Berecls. p. 134. 

p. 485, Bekker. 4 Hist. Glc. Lit. c. xxxiii. § 5. 

2 See Blass, Att.Bereds. pp. 130-134. 


and solemn pathos than Thucydides. The pleading 
of the Plataeans before their Theban judges, the 
dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, the 
whole history of the Sicilian Expedition, and especially 
its terrible closing scene, have a wonderful power 
over the feelings ; and this power is in a great degree 
due to a certain irony. The reader feels throughout 
the restrained emotion of the historian ; he is con- 
scious that the crisis described was an agonising 
one, and that he is hearing the least that could 
be said of it from one who felt, and could have 
said, far more, On the other hand, a characteristic 
colouring, in the literary sense, is scarcely attempted 
by Thucydides. No writer is more consummate 
in making personal or national character appear 
in the history of actions. And when his characters 
speak, they always speak from the general point 
of view which he conceived to be appropriate to 
them. But in the form and language of their 
speeches there is little discrimination. Athenians 
and Lacedaemonians, Pericles and Brasidas, Cleon 
and Diodotus 1 speak much in the same style ; it is 
the ideas which they represent by which alone they 
are broadly distinguished. 2 The case is nearly the 
same with Antiphon. His extant works present 
no subject so great as those of Thucydides, and his 
pathos is necessarily inferior in degree to that of the 
historian ; but it resembles it in its stern solemnity, 

i Time. in. 42. insolence and vehemence of language : 
2 One exception may possibly be e.g. vi. 18 § 3, teal ovk 'eanv 7jfilv 
noted. It seems as if the unique rafxteueadai els 8<rov ftov\6[j,eda im- 
personality of Alcibiades were some- x €LV '- ib. § 4, tva UeXoirowrjo-iajv aropi- 
times indicated by a characteristic- aojfj.ev rb <f>p6vr}fia. 


and also in this, that it owes much of its impressive - 
ness to its self-control. The second 1 and fourth L> 
speeches of the First Tetralogy, and the second 3 and 
third 4 of the Second, furnish perhaps the best ex- 
amples. In ethos, on the contrary, Antiphon is 
weak; and this, in a writer of speeches for persons 
of all ages and conditions, must be considered a 
defect. In the Herodes case the defendant is a 
young Mytilenean, who frequently pleads his in- 
experience of affairs and his want of practice as a 
speaker. The speech On the Choreutes is delivered 
by an Athenian citizen of mature age and eminent 
public services. But the two persons speak nearly 
in the same strain and with the same measure of 
self-confidence. Had Lysias been the composer, 
greater deference to the judges and a more decided 
avoidance of rhetoric would have distinguished the 
appeal of the young alien to an unfriendly court from 
the address of the statesman to his fellow-citizens. 

The place of Antiphon in the history of his art is The style of 
further marked by the degree in which he had at- iioVfar" 
tained a periodic style. It is perhaps impossible to - peno lc " 
find English terms which shall give all the clearness 
of the Greek contrast between irepiohucr} and elpofievrj 
Xe^?. 5 The " running" style, as elpofiivi] expresses, is 
that in which the ideas are merely strung together, 

1 Esp. §§1-4, 9. ing" — in contrast to the close, coni- 

2 Esp. §§ 1-3. pact system of the periodic style. It 
; ' §§ 1-3, 10-12. is also called by Dionysius rfc Dem osth, 

4 §§3, 4. c. 39, KofxiuLaTCKT}, " commatic, " as 

5 Ae£ts elpofj^vri (Arist. lih-et. in. 9). consisting of short clauses (KOjUfiara) 
Demetrius (ipfi. ire pi irepioSup, § 12,; following each other without pause. 
calls it 8L7]pr]iJL€V7], " disjointed," dia\e- Aristotle (1. c.) calls the periodic 
\v]UL€V7], "loose," 8L€ppLfxfji€V7] 7 "sprawl- jjtyle KaT€ffrpajJL/j.ivrj, "compact," 


like beads, in the order in which they naturally pre- 
sent themselves to the mind. Its characteristic is 
simple continuity. The characteristic of the " peri- 
odic " style is that each sentence " comes round " upon 
itself, so as to form a separate, symmetrical whole. 1 
The running style may be represented by a straight 
line which may be cut short at any point or prolonged 
to any point : the periodic style is a system of inde- 
pendent circles. The period may be formed either, 
so to say, in one piece, or of several members (rc&Xa, 
membra), as a hoop may be made either of a single 
lath bent round, or of segments fitted together. It 
was a maxim of the later Greek rhetoric that, for 
the sake of simplicity and strength, a period should 
not consist of more than four 2 of these members or 
segments ; Roman rhetoric allowed a greater number. 3 
Aristotle 4 takes as his example of the " running " 
style the opening words of the History of Herodotus ; 
and, speaking generally, it may be said that this was 
the style in which Herodotus and the earlier Ionian 
logographers wrote. But it ought to be remembered 
that neither Herodotus, nor any writer in a language 
which has passed beyond the rudest stage, exhibits the 
" running " style in an ideal simplicity. In its purest 
and simplest form, the running style is incompatible 
with the very idea of a literature. 5 Wherever a 
literature exists, it contains the germ, however imma- 

1 Cicero calls the period circuitum 5 Blass, Att. Berccls. p. 124 : Eine 
et quasi orbem verborum (de Orat. in. gewisse Periodik hat natiirlich die 
51. 198). griechische imd jede Litteratur von 

2 Hermogenes, p. 240, Anfang an gehabt : eine ganz reine 
Spengel. Ae£ts elpojuevT] ist in der Wirklichkeit 

3 Quint, ix. 4. 124. nie vorhanden. 

4 Met. in. 9. 


ture, of the periodic style ; which, if the literature is 
developed, is necessarily developed along with it. 
For every effort to grasp and limit an idea naturally 
finds expression more or less in the periodic manner, 
the very nature of a period being to comprehend and 
define. In Herodotus, the running style, so con- 
genial to his direct narrative, is dominant ; but 
when he pauses and braces himself to state some 
theory, some general result of his observations, he 
tends to become periodic just because he is striving 
to be precise. 1 From the time of Herodotus onward 
the periodic style is seen gradually more and more 
matured, according as men felt more and more the 
stimulus to find vigorous utterance for clear concep- 
tions. Antiphon represents a moment at which this 
stimulus had become stronger than it had ever before 
been in the Greek world. His activity as a writer 
of speeches may be placed between the years 421 and 
411 B.C. 2 The effects of the Peloponnesian war 
in sharpening political animosities had made them- 
selves fully felt ; that phase of Athenian democracy 
in which the contests of the ecclesia and of the law- 
courts were keenest and most frequent had set in ; 
the teaching of the Sophists had thrown a new light 
upon language considered as a weapon. Every man 
felt the desire, the urgent necessity, of being able 
in all cases to express his opinions with the most 

1 See (for instance) the passage <paveuv d-nrode^aadai, | cppaau 5l6tl 

in which Herodotus speculates on fxoi dotceei. irX^dveadai 6 NetXos rod 

the causes of the overflowing of depeos. 

the Nile, n. 24, 25. It begins 2 The speech On the Murder of 

in a thoroughly periodic style : — Herodes must probably be placed 

el Be del, \ fiefixj/afjievov yvuftas ras between 421 and 416 B.C. ; the 

irpoKei/uLevas, \ avrbv irepi t<2v d- speech On die Choreutes about 413. 



trenchant force ; at any moment his life might de- 
pend upon it. The new intensity of the age is 
reflected in the speeches of Antiphon. Wherever 
the feeling rises highest, as in the appeals to the 
judges, he strives to use a language which shall 
" pack the thoughts closely and bring them out 
roundly." 1 But it is striking to observe how far 
this periodic style still is from the ease of Lysias or 
the smooth completeness of Isocrates. The harsh- 
ness of the old rugged writing refuses to blend with 
it harmoniously, — either taking it up with marked 
transitions, or suddenly breaking out in the midst of 
the most elaborate passages. 2 It is everywhere plain 
that the desire to be compact is greater than the 
power. Antitheses and parallelisms 3 are abundantly 
employed, giving a rigid and monotonous effect to 
the periods which they form. That more artistic 
period of which the several parts resemble the 
mutually-supporting stones of a vaulted roof, 4 and 
which leads the ear by a smooth curve to a happy 
finish, has not yet been found. An imperfect sense 
of rhythm, or a habit of composition to which rhyth- 
mical restraint is intolerable except for a very short 
space, is everywhere manifest. The vinegar and the 
oil refuse to mingle. Thucydicles presents the same 

1 Dionys. de Lys. c. 6 (in refer- (pavepav elvai rrjv viroiplav. ..iirtdeTo 

ence to Lysias), i} <rv<7Tp€(povcra r<x ai'rt3) the Kareo-Tpa/nfievr} and elpo- 

vorjfJiaTa kclI arpoyyvXojs €K(pepovcra fxevrj are combined. 

Xe'&c — a good description of the ., K 

^ > & * , ° E.g. Accus. i enen. fc o, rov fiev 

periodic style generally as opposed . „ , , 

to the elponevr). 

2 E.g., in the speech On the 
Murder of Herodes, sections 1, 2 
show thoroughly artistic periods : 4 irepKpep^s areyrj, Demetrius irepi 


§ 20, again, is almost pure eipofxevTj : ipfi. § 12, where this comparison 
in Tetral. II. T. 7 (a&Qv <5e 5lcl to made 


phenomenon, but with some curious differences. It 
may perhaps be said that, while Antiphon has more 
technical skill (incomplete as that skill is) in periodic 
writing, Thucydides has infinitely more of its spirit. 
He is always at high pressure, always nervous, in- 
tense. He struggles to bring a large, complex idea 
into a framework in which the whole can be seen at 
once. Aristotle says that a period must be of " a 
size to be taken in at a glance ; " ] and this is what 
Thucydides wishes the thought of each sentence to 
be, though he is sometimes clumsy in the mechanism 
of the sentence itself. Dionysius mentions among 
the excellences which Demosthenes borrowed from 
the historian, " his rapid movement, his terseness, his 
intensity, his sting ; " J excellences, he adds, which 
neither Antiphon nor Lysias nor Isocrates possessed. 
This intensity, due primarily to genius, next to the 
absorbing interest of a great subject, does, in truth, 
place Thucydides, with all his roughness, far nearer 
than Antiphon to the ideal of a compact and masterly 
prose. Technically speaking, Thucydides as well as 
Antiphon must be placed in the border-land between 
the old running style and finished periodic writing. 
But the essential merits of the latter, though in a 
rude shape, have already been reached by the native 
vigour of the historian ; while to the orator a period 
is still something which must be constructed with 
painful effort, and on a model admitting of little 

1 fxeyedos evavvoTrrov : lihet. in. 9. seems to be a metaphor of the same 

- tcl t&xv — t«,s <jvcrTpo(f)ds — rods kind as avcrrripoi', and to mean "his 

rbvovs — to iriKpov : Dionys. De Time. biting flavour"); and ttjp i^eyeipov- 

53. He adds to UTpvcpvov (which aav ra Trddrj detvoTrjTa. 


Antiphon's These seem to be the leading characteristics of 

treatment a j • i t r> • , • > • i i • 

of subject- Antipnon as regards torm : it remains to consider nis 
treatment of subject-matter. The arrangement of 
his speeches, so far as the extant specimens warrant 
a judgment, was usually simple. First a proem 
(irpooifiLov) explanatory or appealing ; next an intro- 
duction (technically irpoKaraaKevrj) dealing with the 
circumstances under which the case had been brought 
into court, and noticing any informalities of pro- 
cedure : then a narrative of the facts (ScTJyrjaLs) : then 
arguments and proofs (Trlo-reis;), the strongest first : 
finally an epilogue or peroration (iirlXoyos). The 
Tetralogies, being merely sketches for practice, 
have only proem, arguments and epilogue, not the 
"introduction" or the narrative. The speech On the 
Murder of Herodes and the speech On the Choreutes 
(in the latter of which the epilogue seems to have 
been lost) are the best examples of Antiphon's 
method. It is noticeable that in neither of these 
are the facts of the particular case dealt with closely 
or searchingly ; and consequently in both instances 
the narrative of the facts falls into the background. 
Narrative was the forte of Andocides and Lysias ; 
it appears to have been the weak side of Antiphon, 
who was strongest in general argument. General 
presumptions, — those afforded, for instance, by the 
refusal of the prosecutors to give up their slaves 
for examination, or by the respective characters of 
prosecutor and prisoner and by their former re- 
lations — are most insisted upon. The First Tetralogy 
is a good example of Antiphon's ingenuity in dealing 
with abstract probabilities {eltcora) ; and the same 


preference for proofs external to the immediate cir- 
cumstances of the case is traceable in all his extant 
work. The adroitness of the sophistical rhetoric 
shows itself, not merely in the variety of forms given 
to the same argument, but sometimes in sophistry of 
a more glaring kind. 1 

The rhetorician of the school is further seen in 
the great number of commonplaces, evidently elabo- 
rated beforehand and without reference to any special 
occasion, which are brought in as opportunity offers. 
The same panegyric on the laws for homicide occurs, 
in the same words, both in the speech On the Chor- 
eutes and in that On the Murder of Herodes. In the 
last-named speech the reflections on the strength of 
a good conscience, 2 and the defendant's contention 
that he deserves pity, not punishment, 3 are palpably 
commonplaces prepared for general use. Such patches, 
unless introduced with consummate skill, are doubly a 
blemish ; they break the coherence of the argument and 
they destroy everything like fresh and uniform colour- 
ing ; the speech becomes, as an old critic says, uneven. 4 
But the crudities inseparable from a new art do not 
affect Antiphon's claim to be considered, for his day, 
a great and powerful orator. In two things, says 
Thucydides, he was masterly, — in power of conception 
and in power of expression. 5 These were the two 
supreme qualifications for a speaker at a time when 
the mere faculty of lucid and continuous exposition 

1 See e.g. the argument in a circle 5 Thuc. vin. 68: Kpanaros ivdv- 
in Tetr. I. A. § 6. fiTjdrjvaL yevbfxevos /cat & yvoi-r) 

2 de Choreut. § 93. eiireiv. Comp. [Plut.] Vitt. X. 
* lb. § 73. Oratt. 8 : tern de kv rots \6yois 
4 avibfioXov : Alcidainas Tie pi 2o- dtcpiffis kclI iridavbs koX detpos irepi 

(pLo-r. §§ 24, 25. Tr\v evpeaiv. 


was rare, and when the refinements of literary elo- 
quence were as yet unknown. If the speaker could 
invent a sufficient number of telling points, and could 
put them clearly, this was everything. Antiphon, 
with his ingenuity in hypothesis and his stately 
rhetoric, fulfilled both requirements. Remembering 
the style of his oratory and his place in the history 
of the art, no one need be perplexed to reconcile the 
high praise of Thucydides with what is at first sight 
the startling judgment of Dionysius. That critic, 
speaking of the eloquence which aims at close reasoning 
and at victory in discussion, gives the foremost place 
in it to Lysias. He then mentions others who have 
practised it, — Antiphon among the rest. " Antiphon, 
however," he says, " has nothing but his antique and 
stern dignity ; a fighter of causes (ayoovLcrTrjs) he is 
not, either in debate or in lawsuits." * If, as Thucy- 
dides tells us, no one could help so well as Antiphon 
those who w T ere fighting causes (aycovL&fievovs) 2 in 
the ecclesia or the law-courts ; if, on his own trial, he 
delivered a defence of unprecedented brilliancy ; in 
what sense is Dionysius to be understood ? The ex- 
planation lies probably in the notion which the critic 
attached to the word " agonist." He had before his 
mind the finished pleader or debater of a time when 
combative oratory considered as an art had reached 
its acme ; when every discussion w r as a conflict in 
which the liveliest and supplest energy must be put 
forth in support of practised skill ; when the success- 
ful speaker must grapple at close quarters with his 

1 Dionys. de Isaeo, c. 20 : 'Avti- ovre GVjJL@ov\evTiKwv oiire diKaviKdv 
<pcov ye /jLtjv to avaTrjpbv k'x 61 ^vov earl. 
kclI dpxcuov, ayoovuTTris de \6yuv - Time. Yin. 68. 


adversary, and be in truth an " agonist," an athlete 
straining every nerve for victory. Already Cleon 
could describe the "agonistic" eloquence which was 
becoming: the fashion in the ecclesia as characterized 
by swift surprises, by rapid thrust and parry ; 2 already 
Strepsiades conceives the "agonist" of the law-courts 
as "'bold, glib, audacious, headlong." 2 This was not 
the character of Antiphon. He was a subtle reasoner, 
a master of expression, and furnished others with 
arguments and words ; but he was not himself a man 
of the arena. He never descended into it when he 
could help ; he had nothing of its spirit, He did not 
grapple with his adversary, but in the statelier manner 
of the old orators attacked him (as it were) from an 
opposite platform. Opposed in court to such a 
speaker as Isaeus, he would have had as little chance 
with the judges as Burke with one of those juries 
which Curran used to take by storm. Perhaps it was 
precisely because he was not in this sense an " agonist" 
that he found his most congenial sphere in the calm 
and grave procedure of the Areiopagus. 

Nor was it by the stamp of his eloquence alone Religions 
that he was fitted to command the attention of that Antiphon. 
Court. In politics Antiphon was aristocratic ; in 
religion, an upholder of those ancient ideas and 
conceptions, bound up with the primitive tradi- 
tions of Attica, of which the Areiopagus was the 

1 It is remarkable how strongly klos dywvoderovvres — foraywvi^ofie- 
this image of debate in the ecclesia vol. The characteristics of the 
as an dycbv is brought out in Cleon's dyicvtarris are rb evirpewks rod Ad- 
speech, Thuc. III. 37, 38 : dywvLcrrai yov €Kirov?i<jai — Katvor-qs \6yov — 6- 
— -^vveaecos dycovi e7rcu/)o/xeVou? — cos ^ecos XeyeLV (ib. ). 

ovk eyvcoarai dywv'ujatr dv — e/c rCov " 2 Ar. Nxib. 445, Opaavs, eiiyXcor- 

roLiovde dycbvcov — a'irioi 5' vjulcls tea- ros, roXjayjpbs, trrjs. 


embodiment and the guardian. For most minds 
of his day these ideas were losing their awful 
prestige, — fading, in the light of science, before newer 
beliefs, as oligarchy had yielded to democracy, as 
Cronus to the dynasty of Zeus. But, as Athena, 
speaking in the name of that dynasty, had reserved 
to the Eumenides a perpetual altar in her land, 1 so 
Antiphon had embraced the new culture without 
parting from a belief in gods who visit national 
defilement, 2 in spirits who hear the curse of 
dying men 3 and avenge blood crying from the 
ground. In the recent history of his own city he 
had seen a great impiety followed by a tremendous 
disaster. 4 The prominence which he always gives 
to the theological view of homicide means more than 
that this was the tone of the Court to which his 
speeches were most frequently addressed : it points 
to a real and earnest feeling in his own mind. There 

1 Aesch. Earn. 804. Eum. 815 ; and Soph. 0. T. 25, 

2 See, for instance, the close of 101. 

the accuser's first speech in the 3 ol dXiTTjpioi (which Antiphon 

First Tetralogy (I. A. §10)... "It is uses in the sense of dXdaropes : and 

also harmful for you that this man, so Andoc. de Myst. § 131) — ol tCcv 

vile and polluted as he is, should diroOavovTuv irpofTTpbiraioi : Tetr. ill. 

enter the precincts of the gods to A. § 4. He uses evdvpuos {Tetr. n. 

defile them, or should poison with A. 2, etc.), just as the older poets 

his infection the guiltless persons do, of a sin which lies heavy on the 

whom he meets at the same table. soul, bringing a presage of aveng- 

From such causes spring plagues ing Furies ; and the poetical ttoivt) 

of barrenness (at dcpopicu) and re- (Tetr. i. A. § 11), of atonement for 

verses in men's fortunes. You must blood. 

therefore remember that vengeance 4 Timaeus, writing early in the 3rd 

is yours: you must impute to this century B.C., directly connected the 

man his own crimes : you must defeat of the Athenians in Sicily 

bring their penalty home to him, with the mutilation of the Hermae 

and purity bad 'to Athens, ," Again, — noticing that the Syracusan 

in Tetr. n. T. § 8, he speaks of Hermocrates was a descendant of 

deia ktjXls. Compare the passage the god Hermes : Tim. frag. 

in which the Erinyes threaten 103-4, referred to by Grote, vol. 

Attica with \i%V d(pvXXos, dreKvos, VII. p. 230. 


is no better instance of this feeling than the opening 
of the Third Tetralogy — a mere exercise, in which 
the elaborate simulation of a religious sentiment 
would have had no motive : — 

"The god, when it was his will to create man- 
kind, begat the earliest of our race and gave us for 
nourishers the earth and sea, that we might not die, 
for want of needful sustenance, before the term of 
old age. Whoever, then, having been deemed worthy 
of these things by the god, lawlessly robs any one 
among us of life, is impious towards heaven and 
confounds the ordinances of men. The dead man, 
robbed of the god's gift, necessarily bequeaths, as 
that god's punishment, the anger of avenging spirits 
— anger which unjust judges or false witnesses, 
becoming partners in the impiety of the murderer, 
bring, as a self-sought defilement, into their own 
houses. We, the champions of the murdered, if for 
any collateral enmity we prosecute innocent persons, 
shall find, by our failure to vindicate the dead, dread 
avengers in the spirits which hear his curse ; while, 
by putting the pure to a wrongful death, we become 
liable to the penalties of murder, and, in persuading 
you to violate the law, responsible for your sin also." 1 

The analogy of Antiphon to Aeschylus in regard Aeschyi 
to general style has once already been noticed ; it Antipi: 
forces itself upon the mind in a special aspect here, 
where the threat of judgment from the grave on 
blood is wrapt round with the very terror and dark- 
ness of the Eitmenides. In another place, where 
Antiphon is speaking of the signs by which the gods 

1 Tetr. in. A. §§ 2 f. 

tone in 



point out the guilty, the Aeschylean tone is still 
more striking. No passage, perhaps, in Aeschylus 
is more expressive of the poet's deepest feeling about 
life than that in which Eteocles forebodes that the 
personal goodness of Amphiaraus will not deliver 
him : — 

Alas that doom which mingles in the world 
A just man with the scorners of the gods ! 

Ay, for a pure man going on the sea 

With men fierce-blooded and their secret sin 

Dies in a moment with the loathed of heaven. 1 

In the Herodes trial the defendant appeals to 
the silent witness which the p;ods have borne in his 
behalf: — " You know doubtless that often ere now 
men red-handed or otherwise polluted have, by 
entering the same ship, destroyed with themselves 
those who were pure towards the gods ; and that 
others, escaping death, have incurred the extremity 
of danger through such men. Many again, on stand- 
ing beside the sacrifice, have been discovered to be 
impure and hinderers of the solemn rites. Now in all 
such cases an opposite fortune has been mine. First, 
all who have sailed with me have had excellent 
voyages : then, whenever I have assisted at a 
sacrifice it has in every instance been most favour- 
able. These facts I claim as strong evidence touching 
the present charge and the falsity of the prosecutor's 
accusations/ 7 2 

Coincidences of thought and tone such as these 
deserve notice just because they are general coin- 

1 Aesch. Thcb. 593 fl'. - Be caed. Herod §§ 82 ff. 


cidences. There is no warrant for assuming a 
resemblance in any special features between the 
mind of Antiphon and the mind of Aeschylus : all 
the more that which the two minds have in common 
illustrates the broadest aspect of each. By pursuits 
and calling Antiphon belonged to a new Athenian 
democracy antagonistic to the old ideas and beliefs : 
by the bent of his intellect and of his sympathies 
he belonged, like Aeschylus, to the elder democracy. 
It is this which gives to his extant work a special 
interest over and above its strictly literary interest. 
All the other men whose writings remain to show 
the development of oratorical Attic prose have 
around them the atmosphere of eager debate or 
litigation ; Antiphon, in language and in thought 
alike, stands apart from them as the representative 
of a graver public life. Theirs is the spirit of the 
ecclesia or the dicastery ; his is the spirit of the 




The 4>ovlkol Sixty speeches ascribed to Antiphon were known in 
extant ° ne "the reign of Augustus ; but of these Caecilius pro- 
nounced twenty -five spurious. 1 Fifteen, including 
the twelve speeches of the Tetralogies, are now 
extant. All these relate to causes of homicide. The 
titles of lost speeches prove that Antiphon s activity 
was not confined to this province ; but it was in this 
province that he excelled ; and as the orations of 
Isaeus are now represented by one class only, the 
KXrjpi/col, so the orations of Antiphon are represented 
by one class only, the fyovacoL 
TheTetra- The Tetralogies have this special interest, that 
they represent rhetoric in its transition from the 
technical to the practical stage, from the schools to 
the law-courts and the ecclesia. Antiphon stood 
between the sophists who preceded and the orators 
who followed him as the first Athenian who was at 
once a theorist of rhetoric and a master of practical 
eloquence. The Tetralogies hold a corresponding 
place between merely ornamental exercises and real 

1 [Plut.] Vitt. X. Oratt. 


chap, in ANT1P HON— WORKS 45 

orations. Each of them forms a set of four speeches, 
supposed to be spoken in a trial for homicide. The 
accuser states his charge, and the defendant replies ; 
the accuser then speaks again, and the defendant 
follows with a second reply. The imaginary case is 
in each instance sketched as lightly as possible ; 
details are dispensed with ; only the essential frame- 
work for discussion is supplied. Hence, in these 
skeleton -speeches, the structure and anatomy of the 
argument stand forth in naked clearness, stripped of 
everything accidental, and showing in bold relief 
the organic lines of a rhetorical pleader's thought. 
It was the essence of the technical rhetoric that it 
taught a man to be equally ready to defend either 
side of a question. Here we have the same man — 
Antiphon himself — arguing both sides, with tolerably 
well-balanced force; and it must be allowed that 
much of the reasoning — especially in the Second 
Tetralogy — is, in the modern sense, sophistical. In 
reference, however, to this general characteristic one 
thing ought to be borne in mind. The Athenian law 
of homicide was precise, but it was not scientific. 
The distinctions which it drew between various 
decrees of guilt in various sets of circumstances 
depended rather on minute tradition than on clear 
principle. A captious or even frivolous style of 
argument was invited by a code which employed 
vague conceptions in the elaborate classification of 
accidental details. Thus far the Tetralogies bear the 
necessary mark of the age which produced them. 
But in all else they are distinguished as widely as 
possible from the essays of a merely artificial rhetoric ; 


not less from the "displays" of the elder sophists 
than from the "declamations" of the Augustan age. 1 
They are not only thoroughly real and practical, but 
they show Antiphon, in one sense, at his best. He 
argues in them with more than the subtlety of the 
speeches which he composed for others, for here he 
has no less an antagonist than himself: he speaks 
with more than the elevation of his ordinary style, — 
for in \h^ privacy of the school he owed less concession 
to an altered public taste. 
First The First Tetralogy supposes the following case, 

r Petralo cy , 

A citizen, coming home at night from a dinner-party, 
has been murdered. His slave, found mortally 
wounded on the same spot, deposes that he recognised 
one of the assassins. This was an old enemy of his 
master, against whom the latter was about to bring 
a lawsuit wdiich might be ruinous. The accused 
denies the charge : the case comes before the court of 
the Areiopagus. The speeches of accuser and de- 
fendant comprise a number of separate arguments, 
each of w r hich is carefully, though very briefly, 
stated, but which are not systematised or woven into 
a whole. An enumeration of the points raised on 
either side in this case will give a fair general idea of 
the scope of the Tetralogies generally. 

1 "Antiphon is a sophist," says very phrase "scholae veterum " 

Reiske (Orat. Att. vn. p. 849)— shows the vagueness of this as- 

"nay, in a manner the father of sertion. Precisely that which 

that pedantic {ii/nibratici), hair- distinguished Antiphon from the 

splitting, empty, atfected kind of earlier sophists was his practical 

speaking with which the schools bent. No man could be less fairly 

of the ancients were rife." The called " umbraticus. " 


T. First Speech of the Accuser 

1. §§ 1-3. {Proem.) The accused is so crafty that A.nah> 
even an imperfect proof against him ought to be accepted : 

a proof complete in all its parts is hardly to be looked for. 
— It is not to be supposed that the accuser would have 
deliberately incurred the guilt of prosecuting an innocent 

[Here a narrative of the facts would naturally follow ; 
but as this is a mere practice-speech, it is left out, and the 
speaker comes at once to the proofs — first, those derived 
from argument on the circumstances themselves (the evre^voc 
Tri(jT€i$) — then, the testimony of the slave (which represents 
the ar€j(voi)^\ 

2. § 4. The deceased cannot have been murdered by 
robbers ; for he was not plundered. 

3. Nor in a drunken brawl : for the time and place are 
against it. 

4. Nor by mistake for some one else ; for, in that case, 
the slave would not have been attacked too. 

5. §§ 5—8. It was therefore a premeditated crime ; 
and this must have been prompted by a motive of revenge 
or fear. 

6. Now the accused had both motives. He had lost 
much property in actions brought by the deceased, and was 
threatened with the- loss of more. The murder was the only 
means by which he could evade the lawsuit hanging over 
him. [Here follows a curious argument in a circle.] And 
he must have felt that he was going to lose the lawsuit, or 
he would not have braved a trial for murder. 

7. § 9. The slave identifies him. 

8. §§ 9—11. {Epilogue.) If such proofs do not suffice, 
no murderer can ever be brought to justice, and the State 
will be left to bear the wrath of the gods for an unexpiated 


II. First Speech of the Defendant 

1. §§ 1-4. (Proem.) The accused deserves the pity of 
the judge, for lie is the most unlucky of men. In death, as 
in life, his enemy hurts him still. It is not enough if he 
can prove his own innocence ; he is expected to point out 
the real culprit. The accuser credits him with craft. If 
he was so crafty, is it likely that he would have exposed 
himself to such obvious suspicion ? 

2. §§ 5—6. The deceased may have been murdered by 
robbers, who were scared off by people coming up before 
they had stripped him. 

3. Or he may have been murdered because he had 
been witness of some crime. 

4. Or by some other of his numerous enemies ; who 
would have felt safe, knowing that the suspicion was sure 
to fall on the accused, his great enemy. 

5. § 7. The testimony of the slave is untrustworthy, 
since, in the terror of the moment, he may have been mis- 
taken ; or he may have been ordered by his present masters 
to speak against the accused. Generally, the evidence of 
slaves is held untrustworthy ; else they would not be 

6. § 8. Even if mere probabilities are to decide the 
case, it is more probable that the accused should have em- 
ployed some one else to do the murder, than that the slave 
should, at such a time, have been accurate in his recog- 

7. § 9. The danger of losing money in the impending 
lawsuit could not have seemed more serious to the accused 
than the danger, which he runs in the present trial, of 
losing his life. 

8. §§ 10—13. (Epilogue.) Though he be deemed the 
probable murderer, he ought not to be condemned unless 
he is proved to be the actual murderer. — It is his adver- 


sary who, by accusing the innocent, is really answerable for 
the consequences of a crime remaining unexpiated. — The 
whole life and character of the accused are in his favour, 
as much as those of the accuser are against Mm. — The 
judges must succour the ill fortune of a slandered man. 

III. Second Speech of the Accuser 

1. § 1. (Proem.) The defendant has no right to speak 
of his " misfortune " : it is his fault. The first speech for 
the prosecutor proved his guilt ; this shall overthrow his 

2. § 2. Had the robbers been scared off by people 
coming up, these persons would have questioned the slave 
about the assassins, and given information which would 
have exculpated the accused. 

3. Had the deceased been murdered because he had 
been witness of a crime, this crime itself would have been 
heard of. 

4. § 3. His other enemies, being in less danger from 
him than the accused was, had so much less motive for the 

5. § 4. It is contended that the slave's testimony is 
untrustworthy because it was wrung from him by the rack. 
But, in such cases as these, the rack is not used at all. 
[Nothing is said about the hypothesis that the slave may 
have been suborned by his masters.] 

6. § 5. The accused is not likely to have got the deed 
done by other hands, since he would have been suspected 
all the same, and could not have been so sure of the work 
being done thoroughly. 

7. § 6. The lawsuit hanging over him — a certainty — 
would have seemed more formidable to him than the doubt- 
ful chance of a trial for murder. 

8. §§7-8. (Notice of a few topics touched on by the 
defendant at the beginning and end of his speech.) — The 



fear of discovery is not likely to have deterred such a man 
from crime : whereas the prospect of losing his wealth — 
the instrument of his boasted services to the State — is 
very likely to have driven him to it. — When the certain 
murderer cannot be found, the presumptive must be 

9. §§ 9-11. (Epilogiic.) The judges must not acquit 
the accused — condemned alike by probabilities and by 
proofs — and thereby bring bloodguiltiness on themselves. 
By punishing him, they can take the stain of murder off 
the State. 

IV. Second Speech of the Defendant 

1. §§1-3. (Proem.) He is the victim of cruel ma- 
lignity. Though bound only to clear himself, it is 
demanded of him that he shall account for the crime, 

2. §§4-5. Suppose that robbers did the murder, but 
were scared, before they had taken their booty, by people 
coming up. Would these persons, as it is contended, have 
remained to make inquiries ? Coming on a bloody corpse 
and a dying man at dead of night, would they not rather 
have fled in terror from the spot ? 

3. § 6. Suppose that the deceased was slain because 
he had been witness of a crime : — the fact of such crime 
not having been heard of, does not prove that it did not 
take place. 

4. § 7. The slave, with death from his wounds close at 
hand, had nothing to fear if he bore false testimony. 

5. § 8. But the accused can prove a distinct alibi. All 
his own slaves can testify that on the night in question — 
the night of the Diipolia — he did not leave his own house. 

[The assertion of the alibi has been reserved till this 
point, because now the prosecutor cannot reply.] 

6. § 9. It is suggested that he may have committed 
the crime to protect his wealth. But desperate deeds, such 

in A NT IP HON- WORKS 5 1 

as this, are not done by prosperous men. They are more 
natural to men who have nothing to lose. 

7. § 10. Even if he were the presumptive murderer, 
he would not have been proved the actual : but, as it is, 
the probabilities also are for him. On all grounds, there- 
fore, he must be acquitted, or there is no more safety for 
any accused man. 

8. §§ 11-12. (Epilogue.) The judges are entreated 
not to condemn him wrongfully, and so leave the murder 
unatoned for, while they bring a new stain of bloodguilti- 
ness on the State. 

A tolerably full analysis of this First Tetralogy 
has been given, because it is curious as showing the 
general line of argument which a clever Athenian 
reasoner, accustomed to writing for the courts, 
thought most likely to succeed on either side of 
such a case. It will be seen that, though other 
kinds of evidence come into discussion, the contest 
turns largely on general probabilities [eltcoTa) — a 
province for which Antiphon had the relish of a 
trained rhetorician, and on which he enlarges in 
the speech On the Murder of Herodes. 1 As regards 
style, in this as in the other Tetralogies the language 
is noble throughout, rising, in parts of the speeches 
of the accused, to an austere pathos ; 2 it is ahvays 
concise without baldness, but somewhat over - stiff 
and antique. There is also too little of oratorical 
life ; at which, however, in short speeches written 
for practice, the author perhaps did not aim. 

The subject of the Second Tetralogy is the death second 
of a boy accidentally struck by a javelin while e r<l ° g> 

] See esp. de caed. Herod. §§ 57-63. 2 Esp. B. §§ 1-4 : A. §§ 1-3. 


watching a youth practising at the gymnasium. 
The boy's father accuses the youth — whose father 
defends him — of accidental homicide ; and the case 
comes before the court of the Palladion. In order 
to understand the issues raised, it is necessary to 
keep in mind the Greek view of accidental homicide. 
This view was mainly a religious one. The death 
was a pollution. Some person or thing must be 
answerable for that pollution, and must be banished 
from the State, which would else remain defiled. 1 In 
a case like the supposed one, three hypotheses were 
possible : — that the cause of the impurity had been 
the thrower, the person struck, or the missile. 
Pericles and Protagoras spent a whole day in discuss- 
ing a similar question. Epitimus, an athlete, had 
chanced to hit and kill a certain Pharsalian : did 
the guilt lie, they inquired, with Epitimus, with the 
man killed, or with the javelin? 2 There was a 
special court — that held at the Prutaneion — for the 
trial of inanimate things which had caused death. 
Here, however, the question is only of living agents. 
The judges have nothing whatever to do with the 
question as to how far either was morally to blame. 
The question is simply which of them is to be con- 
sidered as, in fact, the author or cause of the death. 

Analysis. The accused, in his first speech, assumes that the case 

admits of no doubt ; states it briefly ; and concludes with an 

1 This feeling about homicide x e ^° a? j tovto 8e 6 5l<Jokwv ti)v difcrjv 

comes out strongly in the custom rod cpovov tva fij) dfjLwpocpios yevrjTai 

of trying cases of <pbvos in the open r£ avdevrr). Cf. supra, p. 40, note 

air : tva tovto jxkv ol SiKacrTal jut] 2 ; and Dem. Aristocr. §§ 65-79. 
to)o~iv eh to olvto Toh fir] KaOapoh tcls 2 Plut. Per id. 36. 

in A N TIP HON— WORKS 5 3 

appeal to the judges (A. §§ 1-2). The father of the accused, 
after bespeaking patience for an apparently strange defence 
(B. §§ 1-2), argues that the error, the afiapTia, was all on 
the boy's side (§§ 3-5). The thrower was standing in his 
appointed place ; the boy was not obliged to place himself 
where he did. The thrower knew what he was about ; the 
boy did not — he chose the wrong moment for running 
across. He was struck ; and so punished himself for his own 
fault (§§ 6-8). — The accuser answers in the tone of a 
plain man bewildered by the shamelessness of the defence 
(T. §§ 1-4). It is absurd, he says, to pretend that the boy 
killed himself with a weapon which he had not touched. 
On the showing of the defence itself, the blame is divided : 
if the boy ran, the youth threw : neither was passive (§§ 5- 
10). — The youth's father answers that his meaning has been 
perverted (A. §§ 1-2) : he did not mean, of course, that 
the boy pierced himself, but that he became the first cause of 
his own death (§§ 3-5). The youth did no more than the 
other throwers, who did not hit the boy only because he did 
not cross their aim (§§ 6-8). Involuntary homicide is, 
doubtless, punishable by law ; but, in this instance, the 
involuntary slayer — the deceased himself — has been pun- 
ished already. To condemn the accused would be only to 
incur a new pollution (§§ 9—10). 

The striking point of the whole Tetralogy is the 
ingenuity with which the defender inverts the 
natural view of the case. The guilt of blood is, he 
says, with the deceased alone, who has taken satis- 
faction for it from himself. " Destroyed by his own 
errors, he was punished by himself in the same 
instant that he sinned." (A. § 8.) 

Another peculiarity of the Athenian law of Third 
homicide is illustrated by the third and last Tetra- 
logy. An elderly man had been beaten by a younger 


man so severely that in a few days he died. The 
young man is tried for murder before the Areiopagus. 

Analysis. The accuser, in a short speech, appeals chiefly to the 

indignation of the judges, dwelling, in a striking passage, 
on the sin of robbing a fellow-mortal of the god's gift 
(A. §§ 1-4). — The defendant argues in reply that, if the 
homicide is to be regarded as accidental, then it rests with 
the surgeon, under whose unskilful treatment the man died ; 
but, if it is to be regarded as deliberate, then the murderer 
is the deceased himself, since he struck the first blow* 
which set the train of events in motion (B. §§ 3—5). — The 
accuser answers that the elder man is not likely to have 
first struck the younger (I\ § 2) ; and that to blame the 
surgeon is idle ; it would not be more absurd to inculpate 
the persons who called in his aid (§ 5). — [Here the second 
speech of the accused could naturally follow. But the 
accused has, in the meantime, taken advantage of the Athe- 
nian law by withdrawing into voluntary exile. The judges 
have no longer any power to punish him. A friend, how- 
ever, who was a bystander of the quarrel, comes forward to 
defend the innocence of the accused.] The guilt, he main- 
tains, lies with the old man ; he, as can be proved, gave the 
first blow (A. §§ 2-5) ; he is at once the murdered and 
the murderer (§8). 

The line thus taken by the defence is remarkable. 
It relies chiefly on the provocation alleged to have 
been given by the deceased. But it does not insist 
upon this provocation as mitigating the guilt of the 
accused. It insists upon it as transferring the whole 
guilt from the accused to the dead man. Athenian 
law recognised only two kinds of homicide ; that 
which was purely accidental, and that which resulted 
from some deliberate act. In the latter case, whether 


there had been an intent to kill or not, some one 
must be a murderer. Thus, here, it would not have 
been enough for the defence to show that the accused 
had, without intent to kill, and under provocation, 
done a fatal injury. It is necessary to go on to 
argue that the deceased was guilty of his own 

The literary form of the Third Tetralogy deserves 
notice in two respects : for the solemnity and 
majesty of the language in the accuser s first address ; 
and for the vivacity lent by rhetorical question and 
answer to part of the first speech of the defendant 1 — 
a vivacity which distinguishes it, as regards style, 
from everything else in these studies. 

Of extant speeches written by Antiphon for real 
causes, by far the most important is that On the speech On 
Murder of Herodes. The facts of the case were as f Herodes. 
follows. Herodes, an Athenian citizen, had settled 
at Mytilene in 427 B.C. after the revolt and reduction 
of that town. He was one of the cleruchs among 
whom its territory was apportioned, but not other- 
wise wealthy. 2 Having occasion to make a voyage 
to Aenus on the coast of Thrace, to receive the ransom 
of some Thracian captives who were in his hands, he 
sailed from Mytilene with the accused, — a young man 
whose father, a citizen of Mytilene, lived chiefly at 
Aenus. 3 Herodes and his companion were driven by 
a storm to put in at Methymna on the north-west 
coast of Lesbos ; and there, as the weather was wet, 
exchanged their open vessel for another which was 
decked. After they had been drinking on board 

1 Tetral. in. B. §§ 2, 3. 2 § 58. 3 § 78. 


together, Herodes went ashore at night, and was 
never seen again. The accused, after making every 
inquiry for him, went on to Aenus in the open 
vessel ; while the decked vessel, into which they had 
moved at Methymna, returned to Mytilene. 1 On 
reaching the latter place again, the defendant was 
charged by the relatives of Herodes with having 
murdered him at the instigation of Lycinus, an 
Athenian 2 living at Mytilene, who had been on bad 
terms with the deceased. They rested their charge 
principally on three grounds. First, that the sole 
companion of the missing man must naturally be con- 
sidered accountable for his disappearance. Secondly, 
that a slave had confessed under torture to having 
assisted the defendant in the murder. Thirdly, that 
on board the vessel which returned from Methymna 
had been found a letter in which the defendant an- 
nounced to Lycinus the accomplishment of the murder. 
Mode of It was necessary that the trial should take place 

legal pro- ... 

cedme. at Athens, whither all subject-allies were compelled 
to bring their criminal causes. The ordinary course 
would have been to have laid an indictment for 
murder (ypa(f>r) $6vov) before the Areiopagus. Instead, 
however, of doing this the relatives of Herodes laid 
an information against the accused as a " malefactor." 3 

1 Compare § 28 with § 23. strength of the £vdei%is, arrested by 

«- See § 61 ; and also § 62, dxe<r- the Eleve f : « 85 ' <Mx*»". Hence 

, , , « ,* , , m § 9 he speaks of raijr-nv rhv 

T€p€L fl€V €fJL6 T7]S TTCLTplOOS, aiT€(TT€p€L ° r ' ' 

U avrbv Upfr, which implies, as a ™W>"- The tel ' ms *'««*« *«- 

Blass points out, that Lesbos was not ° W 'f a,ld «»«7«7* aucovpyla, do 

the nrph of Lyeinns, as it was of " ot denote tw0 d f erent F"*****. 

the defendant. ^ut two P arts of tlle same P rocess - 

' E*>5ei£is was the laying of information 

3 frdeij-is KaKovpyias : cf. § 9, Kaicovp- against a person not yet apprehended : 

70s iydedecyfxevos. When the accused diraywyr) was the act of apprehending 

arrived in Athens, he was, on the him. 

in A NT IP HON— WORKS 5 7 

He was accordingly to be tried by an ordinary 
dicastery under the presidency of the Eleven. " Male- 
factor," at Athens, ordinarily meant a thief, a house- 
breaker, a kidnapper, or criminal of the like class ; 
but the term was, of course, applicable to murder, 
especially if accompanied by robbery. Instances of 
persons accused of murder being proceeded against, 
not by an indictment, but by an information, and 
being summarily arrested without previous inquiry, 
occur only a few years later than the probable date of 
this speech. 1 When, therefore, the accused contends 
that the form of the procedure was unprecedented 
and illegal, this is probably to be understood as an 
exaggeration of the fact that it was unusual. In two 
ways it must have been distasteful to the prisoner : 
first, as an indignity ; secondly, as a positive dis- 
advantage. Trial before the Areiopagus left to 
the prisoner the option of withdrawing from the 
country before sentences ; and imposed upon the 
accuser a peculiarly solemn oath. 2 In this case, 

1 The two murderers of Phrynichus to have raised this very point : Lys. 
in 411 were " seized and put in in Agor. § 85. But, since the pro- 
prison" by his friends (XycpdevTcov cedureofthe Areiopagus was so highly 
/cat £s to dea/MjjTrjpiov airoredevTwv), favourable to the accused, a prose - 
— that is, were proceeded against by cutor would generally prefer the 
cLTraywyrj : Lycurgus in Leocr. §J12. procedure by evde^is if there was any 
The procedure in the case of Agoratus decent pretence for it. And the 
(391 B.C.), again, was by an 2i>5eii-is, condition of manifest guilt does not 
not by a ypacprj <povov, and there was seem to have been rigorously insisted 
an airayuyrj of the accused (Lys. in upon by the authorities. There was, 
Agorat. § 85). Strictly speaking the probably, a feeling that the forms 
evdei&s and dwayuiyr) were applicable of the Areiopagus would be in a 
only to those cases in which the manner profaned by application to 
accused was taken e7r' avroffuhptp : criminals of the vilest class, 
that is, in which no further proof of 2 Be coed. Herod. § 12, deov ere 
his guilt was required. Thus Pollux dLo/xocracrdai opKov rbv fxeyiarov /cat 
defines ^vdet^ts as d/jLoXoyovfievov laxvporarou, i^LoXeiav avrtp /cat yeveu 
ddiKrjjuaTos juLrjvvais, ov Kpiaecos &X\a /cat oiKia rrj ay eirapibfxevov. 
TifjLuplas deofjievov. Agoratus appears 


moreover, the unusual (though not illegal) procedure 
was accompanied by unjust rigours. When the 
accused arrived in Athens, although he offered the 
three sureties required by law, his bail w T as refused ; 
he was imprisoned. This treatment, of which he 
reasonably complains, 1 may have been due in part to 
the unpopularity of Mytileneans at Athens, and to 
the fact that Herodes had been an Athenian citizen. 
Date of the The date of the speech must lie between the 
speeci. ca pt ure of Mytilene in 427 2 B.C. and the revolt of 
Lesbos in 412 B.C. The accused says that in 427 B.C. 
he was too young 3 to understand the events which 
were passing, and that he knows them only by hear- 
say. On the other hand, he can hardly have been 
less than twenty at the time of the trial. Kirchner 4 
and Blass are inclined to place the speech about 42 1 
B.C. ; it would perhaps be better to put it three or 
four years later, about 417 or 416 B.C. On the other 
hand, a slight indication — which seems to have 
escaped notice — appears to show that it was at least 
earlier than the spring of 415 B.C. The accused 
brings together several instances in which great 
crimes had never been explained. 5 If the mutilation 
of the Hermae had then taken place, he could scarcely 
have failed to notice so striking an example. 

Analysis. The speech opens with a proem in which the defendant 

pleads his youth and inexperience (§§ 1—7) ; and which is 
followed by a preliminary argument (irpoKaraaKevr}) on the 

1 § 17. 2 § 76. :i § 75. Antiphont. pp. 2 ff., quoted by Blass, 

4 Kirchner, Detcmporihus orationum Attiscli. Bcreds. p. 166. 

5 §§ 67-70. 


informality of the procedure (§§ 8—18). The defendant 
then gives a narrative of the facts up to his arrival at 
Aenus (§§ 19-24); and shows that the probabilities, as 
depending upon the facts thus far stated, are against the 
story of the prosecutors (§§ 25-28). The second part of 
the narrative describes how the vessel into which Herodes 
and the defendant had moved at Methymna returned to 
Mytilene ; how the slave was tortured, and under torture 
accused the defendant of murder (§§ 29—30). 

The defendant now concentrates his force upon proving 
the testimony of the slave to be worthless (§§ 31-51). 
He next discusses the statement of the prosecutors that a 
letter, in which he announced the murder to Lycinus, had 
been found on board the returning vessel (§§ 52—56). He 
shows that he could have had no motive for the murder 
(§§ 57—63). He maintains that he cannot justly be required 
^0 suggest a solution of the mystery. It is enough if he 
establishes his own innocence. Many crimes have finally 
baffled investigation (§§ 64-73). He notices the reproaches 
brought against his father as having taken part in the revolt 
of Mytilene and having been generally disloyal to Athens 
(§§ 74-80). 

Besides all the other proofs, the innocence of the prisoner 
is vindicated by the absence of signs of the divine anger. 
Voyages and sacrifices in which he has taken part have 
always been prosperous (§§ 81-84). In a concluding appeal 
the judges are reminded that, in any case, justice cannot be 
frustrated by his acquittal, since it will still be possible to 
bring him before the Areiopagus (§§ 85-95). 

In reviewing the whole speech as an argument, Remarks 
the first thing which strikes us is the notable contrast 
between the line of defence taken here and that 
traced for a case essentially similar in the model- 
speeches of the First Tetralogy. There, the defendant 


employs all his ingenuity in suggesting explanations 
of the mysterious crime which shall make the 
hypothesis of his own guilt unnecessary. Here, the 
defendant pointedly refuses to do anything of the 
kind. It is enough if he can show that he was not 
the murderer ; it is not his business to show who was 
or might have been. On this broad, plain ground 
the defence takes a firm stand. The arguments are 
presented in a natural order, as they arise out of the 
facts narrated, and are drawn out at a length pro- 
portionate to their consequence, — by far the greatest 
stress being laid on the worthlessness of the slave's 
evidence ; in discussing which, indeed, the speaker is 
not very consistent. 1 One apparent omission is 
curious. The prisoner incidentally says that he 
never left the vessel on the night when Herodes went 
on shore and disappeared; 2 but he does not dwell 
upon, or attempt to prove, this all-essential alibi. If 
the numerous commonplaces and general sentiments 
seem to us a source of weakness rather than strength, 
allowance must be made for the taste and fashion of 
the time ; and every one must recognise the effective- 
ness of the appeal to divine signs in which the 
argument finds its rhetorical climax. 

As a composition, the speech has great merits. 
The ethos, indeed, is not artistic ; a style so dignified 

1 In § 39 it is contended that the § 39 is not only reasserted, but is 

slave cannot have represented himself ascribed to the adversaries as their 

as taking part in the murder, but own. 

only as helping to dispose of the 2 § 26, \eyovcri 8e cos ev /nh rrj 

corpse. In § 54, on the contrary, it yrj diredavev 6 di>r}p, Kayw \ldov 

is assumed that the slave represented iirepaXov clvto? els rr\v Ke<pa\rjp, 6s 

himself as the actual murderer. ovk e&ftyv rb irapdirav £k tov 

Lastly, in § 68, the view taken in irXoiov. 

in A N TIP HON— WORKS 6 1 

and so sententious is scarcely suitable to a speaker 
who is continually apologising for his youth and in- 
experience. Nor, except in the passage which touches 
on the ruin of Mytilene, 1 is there even an attempt at 
pathos. But there is variety and versatility ; the 
opening passage is artistically elaborate, the conclud- 
ing, impressive in a higher way ; while the purely 
argumentative part of the speech is not encumbered 
with any stiff dignity, but is clear, simple, and suffi- 
ciently animated. Altogether the style has less sus- 
tained elevation, but shows more flexibility, greater 
maturity and mastery, than that of the Tetralogies. 

The speech On the Choreutes relates to the death Speech 

n tx. -i i i • • • i « On the 

of Diodotus, a boy who was in training as member oi choreutes. 
a chorus to be produced at the Thargelia, and who was 
poisoned by a draught given to him to improve his 
voice. 2 The accused is the choregus, an Athenian 
citizen, who discharged that office for his own and 
another tribe, and at whose house the chorus - received 
their lessons. The accuser, Philocrates, brother of the 
deceased Diodotus, laid an information for poisoning 
before the Archon Basileus ; and after some delay, the 
case came before the Areiopagus. 3 It was not con- 

1 § 79 : " For all Mytileneans, the (De glor. Athcn. c. 6) : oi 8e x°PVy " L 
memory of their past error has been ro?s x°P €VTCL ^ s £7X^ La Ka ^ dpidaKia 
made indelible ; they exchanged kcli aKeWiSas teal pLveXbv Trapandevres 
great prosperity for great misery ; eb&xow eirl woXvu XP°' V0V 0wvac- 
they beheld their country made Kovf.ievovs Kal rpvcpujfras. 
desolate." 3 That the Areiopagus was the 

2 The object with which the court which tried the case appears 
draught was given is not stated in certain (1) because that court alone 
the speech itself: but the argument had jurisdiction in ypcupal (papjud- 
says eixpcovias x&P LV ^ 7rLe 4>&PI Jia ' K0V Ka ^ KWV ' (2) because the special com- 
irioov redvrjKev. Compare the passage pliment to the court as "the most 
in which Plutarch speaks of the pains conscientious and upright in Greece " 
taken to train the voices of the chorus (§ 51) points to the Areiopagus. 



tended that the accused had intended to murder the 
boy, but only that he had ordered to be administered 
to him the draught which caused his death. Accord- 
ing to Athenian law this was, however, a capital 
offence. The present speech is the second made by 
the defendant, and the last, therefore, of the trial. 
Its date may probably be placed soon after the Sicilian 
disaster. 1 

Analysis. In a long proem, the accused dwells on the advantage 

of a good conscience — on the excellence of the court of the 
Areiopagus — and on the weight of a judicial decision in 
such a case (§§ 1—6). He goes on to complain of the manner 
in which the adversaries have mixed up irrelevant charges 
with the true issue ; he will address himself to the latter, 
and then refute the former (§§7—10). A narrative of the 

Some have supposed that this case 
came before court at the Palladion, 
because, in § 16, the accused is 
spoken of as (3ov\ev<ras rbv ddvarov, 
and, according to Harpocration, cases 
of fiovXevo-is were tried at the Palla- 
dion by the Ephetae. But the /3o*> 
Xevats of Harpocration is a technical 
term, — eTrifiovXevais, and denotes the 
intent to kill in cases in which death 
had not 'actually followed. On the 
other hand, the accused here is said 
jSouAeucrcu rbv ddvarov merely in the 
sense that it was by his order that the 
draught was given to the boy, though 
he did not hand the cup to him. No 
intent to murder was imputed to him : 
see § 19, ol Karr/yopoi bfJLoXoyovcn fxr\ €K 
irpovoias firjd' £k irapaaKevrjs yeveadai 
rbv ddvarov. 

1 In §§ 12, 21, 55 the choregus 
speaks of having brought an action 
for embezzlement of public monies 
against Philinus and two other per- 
sons. Now Antiphon wrote a speech 
Kara QiXivov, — very probably, as 

Sauppe conjectures, against this 
same Philinus when prosecuted by 
the choregus : and from the speech 
/caret <$iXivov are quoted the words, 
rovs re drjras airavras birXiras 
TToiTjaaL. Sauppe thinks this points 
to a time just after the Sicilian 
disaster: 'in illis enim rerum an- 
gustiis videntur Athenienses thetes 
ad arma vocasse." {Or. Att. vol. u. 
p. 144. ) This is quite possible : but 
Sauppe's other argument that the 
fact of the choregus representing two 
tribes (§ 11) points to a contraction 
of public expenses in a time of dis- 
tress, is not worth much, since we do 
not know that this may not have 
been the usual custom at the Thar- 
gelia. At any rate the decidedly 
modern character of the speech as 
compared with the De caed. Herodis 
warrants us in placing it some years 
after the latter, which (as has been 
said above) was probably spoken 
between 421 and 416 B.C. 


facts is then begun ; but he breaks it off with the remark 
that it would be easy to expose the falsehoods contained in 
the adversary's second speech, and that he will now bring 
proofs (§§ 11-15). The testimony of witnesses is adduced 
and commented upon (§§ 16-19). The defendant goes on to 
contrast his own conduct in the matter with that of the 
accuser ; dwells on the refusal of his challenge to an exa- 
mination of slaves ; and urges the strength in all points of 
his case (§§ 20-32). The evidence closed, he digresses into 
a full review of the adversaries' conduct from the first, in 
order to illustrate their malice and dishonesty. "What 
judges," he asks in conclusion, " would they not deceive, if 
they have dared to trifle with the awful oath under which 
they came before this court?" (§§ 33-51).. 

It seems probable that the end of the speech has Remarks, 
been lost. Standing last in the MSS. of Antiphon, it 
would thus be the more liable to mutilation ; and in 
the concluding speech of a trial the orator would 
scarcely have broken the rule, which he observes in 
every other instance, of finishing with an appeal to 
the judges. The fact that a rhetorical promise made 
in the speech x is not literally fulfilled need not be 
insisted upon to strengthen this view. 

In the speech On the Murder of Herodes, Antiphon 
had to rely mainly on his skill in argument ; here, 
witnesses were available, the case against the accusers 
was strong, and little was needed but a judicious 
marshalling of proofs. This is ably managed ; but, 

1 In § 8 the speaker says that he ever, is conditional — eav vylv ijdofieuots 

will first deal with the matter at y : and is, in effect, if not literally, 

issue, and then meet certain other fulfilled by the digression (§§ 33-51} 

charges which the adversaries have in which he brings out the malicious 

brought against him, but which he character of their whole conduct 

feels sure that he can turn to their towards him. 
own discomfiture. The promise, how- 


as a display of power, the speech is necessarily of 
inferior interest. The Mytilenean defendant in the 
Herocles case and the choregus here speak in the same 
general tone — with a certain directness and earnest- 
ness ; but the common ethos is more strongly marked 
here, as the personality of the speaker comes more 
decidedly forward. In other points of style there is 
a striking contrast between the earlier and the later 
oration. The proem here is, indeed, as measured and 
as elaborate as anything in the earlier work. But it 
stands alone ; in the rest of the speech there is no 
stiffness. The language is that of ordinary life ; the 
sentences are more flowing, if not always clear ; the 
style is enlivened by question and exclamation, 
instead of being ornamented with antitheses and 
parallelisms ; and already the beginning of a transi- 
tion to the easier, more practical style of the later 
eloquence is well marked. 
Speec]l The short speech entitled " Against a Step-mother, 

^itep^ on a Charge of Poisoning," treats of a case which, like 
the preceding, belonged to the jurisdiction of the 
Areiopagus. The speaker, a young man, is the son 
of the deceased. He charges his step-mother with 
having poisoned his father several years before, 1 by 
the instrumentality of a woman who was her dupe. 
The deceased and a friend, Philoneos, the woman's 
lover, had been dining together; and she was per- 
suaded to administer a philtre to both, in hope of 
recovering her lover's affection. Both the men died ; 
and the woman — a slave — was put to death forthwith. 
The accuser now asks that the real criminal, — the 

1 §30. 



true Clytaemnestra l of this tragedy, — shall suffer 

After deprecating in a proem (§§ 1-4) the odium to Analysis. 
which his position exposes him, and commenting on the 
refusal of the adversaries to give up their slaves for examin- 
ation (§§ 5—13), the speaker states the facts of the case 
(§§ 14—20). He goes on to contrast his own part as his 
father's avenger with that of his brother, the champion of 
the murderess (§§ 21-25); appeals for sympathy and re- 
tribution (§§ 26—27) ; denies that his brother's oath to the 
innocence of the accused can have any good ground, whereas 
his own oath to the justice of his cause is supported by his 
father's dying declaration (§§ 28-30); and concludes by 
saying that he has discharged his solemn duty, and that it 
now remains for the judges to do theirs (§ 31). 

Two questions have been raised in connexion Remarks. 
with this speech ; whether it was written merely for 
practice ; and whether it was the w^ork of Antiphon. 
I. It has been urged that stories of this kind were 
often chosen as subjects by the rhetoricians of the 
schools ; that the designation of the accused as 
Clytaemnestra is melodramatic ; that the name 
Philoneos (<$?i\ov€co<;) seems fictitious ; that the address 
to the Areiopagites as & huca^ovre? in § 7 is strange ; 
and that the speech stands in the mss. before the 
Tetralogies. 2 The last objection alone requires notice. 

1 § 7. quae est in Lysiac atque Antiplwntis 

' 2 Spengel rejects the speech, but orationibus (Flensburg, 1847). If 

without assigning reasons (aw. the speech was written as a mere 

Tex v & v > V- H8)« The special ob- exercise, then it certainly is not 

jections mentioned above were the work of Antiphon, who would 

advanced by Maetzner, an editor have treated the subject as he 

of Antiphon, and are examined by treats the subjects of the Tetralogies 

Dr. P. G. Ottsen in a tract De — in outline merely, without need- 

renim iiiventionc ac dispositionc less details of name or place. 



The place of the speech in the mss. is, as Blass ob- 
serves, due to the fact that it is the only accusatory 
speech ; the Tetralogies comprise both accusation and 
defence ; then come the defensive orations. 1 On the 
other hand, the prominence of narrative and the 
entire absence of argument in this speech — in direct 
contrast to the Tetralogies, which are all argument 
and no narrative — and the unfitness of the subject 
for practising the ingenuity of an advocate, seem 
conclusive against the view that this was a mere 
exercise. II. The question of authenticity is more 
difficult. As regards matter, nothing can be weaker 
than the speech. There is no argument. An un- 
supported assertion that the accused had attempted 
the same crime before ; the belief of the deceased 
that his wife was guilty ; the refusal of the ad- 
versaries to give up their slaves ; these are the only 
proofs. As regards style, there is much clumsy 

But there is no good ground for <^i\bvav% (ef. \ltt6vclvs, {jLvpwvavs, etc.). 

assuming that the speech was not the fact of a person so called living 

spoken in a real cause. The story at a seaport would he about its 

has some melodramatic- features. strange as the fact of a person 

but contains nothing which might called Philip living at "Apyos iinro- 

not have occurred in ordinary Greek (Sotov. Lastly, as to the co dcKd- 

life. With the designation of £ovte$ in § 7, the great variety oi 

the accused as Clytaemnestra, com- forms used by Greek orators in 

pare Andoc. de Myst. § 129, tU addressing the judges would forbid 

av e'er} ovros ; 018Lttovs rj Mytcrdos : r) us to pronounce this one inadmis- 

ri XPV &v~bv ovofiQaai ; Isaeus men- sible because it is unusual. But 

tions Ato/cXea rbv 3?\vea, rbv 'Opea- the genuineness of the words is 

rrjv eTLKoKovfieuov ; de Cir. liercd. not above suspicion. Blass, in his 

(Or. vin.) § 3. Maetzner derived edition of Antiplion, brackets as 

the name <i><\6j>ew? from <pi\os and spurious the words in § 7, ir(bs 

vavs, and thought it suspicious ovv irepi rovrcov, lo dinafovres — ovk 

that such a name should be given eiXrjfe. One good ms. omits them ; 

to a resident in the Peiraeus. and they seem like a scholium on 

Ottsen accepts the etymology, but what immediately precedes, 

does not share the suspicion. Even 1 Attisch. Bereds. p. 180, 
if 3?l\6v€cos could be equivalent to 


verbiage. 1 On the other hand, the narrative (§§ 14 
20) shows real tragic power, especially in the contrast 
drawn between the unconsciousness of the miserable 
dupe and the craft of the instigator ; throughout 
there is a pathos of the same kind as that of the 
Tetralogies, but higher ; and lastly there is a strong 
resemblance to a particular passage in the speech On 
the Choreutes. 2 The conclusion to which Blass comes 
appears sensible. 3 Our knowledge of Antiphon's 
style is not so complete as to justify this rejection of 
the speech ; but it must in any case be assigned to a 
period when both his argumentative skill and his 
power as a composer were still in a rude stage of 
their development. 

Besides the extant compositions, twenty-four Lost work.-,. 
others, bearing the name of Antiphon, are known by 
their titles. Among these three deserve especial 
notice, because their titles have occasioned different 
inferences as to their contents, and because it is now 
tolerably certain that they belong, not to Antiphon 
the orator, but to Antiphon the sophist. 4 These are Authorship 
the " speeches " (or rather essays) On Truth, On treatise oi- 

r V J ' Truth, On 

Concord, On Statesmanship. 5 As regards the first ol concord, 

TT , . On State>- 

these, indeed, the testimony ot Hermogenes b that it m ansM r , 

1 e.g. § 21, r£ redveCon vfJL&s /ce- voias : — ttoXitlkos. The fragments 
\etfw /cat r£ rjdiKrjfJiepcp . . TLfiupovs are given in Sauppe's Fragm. Oratt. 
yeve<jdai...a£ > io$ /cat eXeov /cat /Sot?- Att. pp. 145 ff. printed in Baiter 
Betas /cat rtawptas irap v/ulwv tvx&v and Sauppe's Oratorcs Attici, and 
...§ 22, ade/iiTa /cat dreXeara /cat in tire edition of Antiphon by Blass, 
avfiKov<TTa...§ 23, diKa<TTal eyeveade pp. 124-143 (Teubner, 1871). 

/cat iK\ydr)T€. ,5 Hennog. irepl L8eu>v. II. c. 11. p. 

2 Compare § 1 with de Choreuta 414. There were two Aiitiphons, lie 
s 27. says, <2v els fiev eartu 6 prjrup, oinrep 

■ j Att. Bends, p. 184. ol (poviKol cptpovrai Xojol /cat otj^t}- 

4 See p. 2, note 3. yopcKol /cat 6'crot tovtols o/uoiol. erepos 

5 aKrjddas Xoyot, B: — irepl 6/jlo- 8e 6 /cat re par ocr/c ottos /cat ovetpoKpiTTis 


was the work of the Sophist has scarcely been 
questioned. But the treatise On Concord has often 
been given to the orator on the assumption that it 
was a speech, enforcing the importance of harmony, 
which he delivered in some political crisis, perhaps 
at the moment when the Four Hundred were threat- 
ened with ruin by internal dissensions. 1 The treatise 
on Statesmanship, again, might, as far as the title 
witnesses, have been a practical exposition of oligar- 
chical principles by the eloquent colleague of Peisander. 
An examination of the fragments leads, however, to 
the almost certain conclusion that all these three 
works must be ascribed to the Sophist. The essay 
On Truth was a physical treatise, in which cosmic 
phenomena were explained mechanically in the fashion 
of the Ionic School. 2 The essay On Concord was an 

Xeyopievos yeveadai, ovirep oi re irepl margin, whence it crept into the 

rrjs aXydeias Xeyovrai \6yoi /cat 6 text a second time. 
rrepl bjiovoias /cat oi dij/jirjyopLKol kclI 1 In reference to the meeting of 

6 ttoXltlkos. Spengel proposed to the Four Hundred on the day after 

detach the words /cat 6 irepl bfxovoias the mutiny of the hoplites in the 

/cat oi d-rjjurjyopLKoi /cat 6 ttoXltlkos Peiraeus (Time. VIII. 92, 93), ]\Ir. 

from the last clause, and to insert Grote says — "It may probably have 

them in the first clause after (pepov- been in this meeting of the Four 

rat \byoL (omitting, of course, the Hundred that Antiphon delivered 

Kat 5r)p.7)y. which already stands his oration strongly recommending 

there, and the re in oi re irepl rTjs concord." (Hist. Gr. c. 62, vol. vni. 

dX^deias). He would thus make p. 94 n.) "In hoc autem libro " 

Hermogenes ascribe the irepl 6/jlo- (says Blass, Antiphon, p. 130) " si cut 

voias and the ttoXltlkos to Antiphon fragmenta docent, de moribus so- 

the orator, and the aX-qdeias XoyoL phista disserebat deque vitae brevi- 

only to Antiphon the sophist. But tate et aerumnis : rempublicam vero 

this is an arbitrary and violent civiumque concordiam nusquam at- 

treatment of the text. Sauppe is tigit." 

no doubt right in thinking that 2 Protagoras called his Treatise 

its only corruption is the recur- of Natural Philosophy aXrjOeLa, rj 

rence of oi 8rjp.rjyopLKoi in the second 7rept rod ovtos. The most suggestive. 1 

clause. The article had been ac- fragment of the aX-qdeias XbyoL is 

cidentally left out where the word No. 13 in Sauppe's list (fraym. <>r. 

first occurs, and a corrector wrote oi Grace, p. 149). Galen ap. Hippoer. 

drjiuTjyopLKoi at full length in the rpidem. T. 3 ; vol. 17, 1. p. 6^1 


ethical treatise, exhorting all men to live in harmony 
and friendship, instead of embittering their short lives 
by strife. 1 The essay on Statesmanship was no party- 
pamphlet, but a discussion of the training required to 
produce a capable citizen. 2 Besides the speeches 
known to the ancients, a work on the Art of Ehetoric, 3 The 
and a collection of Proems and Epilogues, 4 were 
current under Antiphon's name, Sauppe and Spengel 5 Tli e coiiec- 
believe the Tetralogies to be examples taken from the Proems and 
Rhetoric ; the latter, however, is expressly condemned 
as spurious by Pollux. 6 The collection of Proems 
and Epilogues may, as Blass 7 suggests, have furnished 
the opening and concluding passages of the Speech On 
the Murder of Herodes, and the opening passage of 
that On the Choreutes. In the latter case the differ- 
ence of style between the proem and all that follows 
it is certainly striking. 

(Kiilm) says : — ovtoj de teal Trap ' kvri- dr\vai Kal boKelv ra irpdyfjiara Kara- 

(f>lJovTL Kara to detirepov ttjs 'AXrjdeias /ueXe?v vir' otvov rjacnbfJLevov. 

€(Ttu> evpelv yeypawevrjv tt]v Tvpoat]- :i ' prrropiKa i T e X vai. 

yopiav ev rride tt) pricreL' orav o$v A , , , ,. 

, , 1 , , , TrpooLjuaa /cat emXoyoi. 

yevwvTai ev ry aepi b/mppoi rr 

/cat ttv exjfxara virevavria aXXr\ 

Xois, to re avcrr peeper at to vdup 

r> Sauppe, Fragm. Oratt. Gr. 
p. 145. 

Kai irvKvovraL kutcl ttoXXcl, 6 Pollux (vi. 143) quotes a word 

k.t.X. as nsed by Antiphon ev rats p-qropi- 

1 See, for instance, fragments 1 *cus Texvais : but adds — 5okov<tl 5' 
and 4 of the irepl ojmovoias in °v yv^iai. 

Sauppe : — dvaOeadat 5e Cocnrep irerTov ~ Attisch. Bereds. p. 103, where 

rbv fiiov ovk e<TTiv...7ro\\ol 8 1 exovTes he quotes (note 7) Cic. Brut. 47 for 

<piXovs ov yiyvdoGKovcnv, a\X eTalpovs the statement of Aristotle — huic 

iroiovvrai. dCowas, ttXovtov /cat Tuxrjs (Gorgiac) AntijjJiontem Rhamnusium 

KoXaKas. sim-ilia quaedam habuissc conscripta : 

2 For instance, in fragment 2 of — where conscripta, seems to mean 
the ttoXltlkos we have a precept on a collection of communes loci stored 
the value of a character for steady up to be used as they might be 
business habits — firjTe (ptXoTroT^v kXt)- wanted. 




The life of Andocides has, in one broad aspect, a 
striking analogy to the life of Antiphon. Each man 
stands forth for a moment a conspicuous actor in one 
great scene, while the rest of his history is but dimly 
known ; and each, at that moment, appears as an 
oligarch exposed to the suspicion and dislike of the 
democracy. The Revolution of the Four Hundred is 
the decisive and final event in the life of Antiphon. 
The mutilation of the Hermae is the first, but hardly 
less decisive event, in the known life of Andocides ; 
the event which, for thirteen years afterwards, abso- 
lutely determined his fortunes, and which throws its 
shadow over all that is known of their sequel. 
Birth of Andocides was born probably about 440 B.C. 1 The 

deme Cydathene, of which he was a member, was 
included in the Pandionian tribe. His family was 

1 According to [Lys.] in Andoe. about 540. The pseudo - Plutarch 

§ 46, he was in 399 B.C. ir\eov r) rer- puts his birth in the archonship of 

TapaKovraeTTj yeyovdos. He speaks of Theagenides, 01. 78. 1, 468 B.C.: 

his " youthfulness " in 415 B.C. : clc probably on the assumption that the 

Red. § 7. His father, Leogoras II., orator was the Andocides of Time, 

may have been born about 470 : r. 51. 
Andocides I. about 500 : Leogoras I. 


traced by Hellanicus the genealogist through Odysseus 
up to the god Hermes, 1 and had been known in 
Athenian history for at least three generations. 
Leogoras, his great-grandfather, had fought against 
the Peisistratidae. 2 Andocides, the elder, his grand- 
father, was one of ten envoys who negotiated the 
Thirty Years' Truce with Sparta in 445 ; 3 and had 
commanded with Pericles at Samos in 440, 4 and with 
Glaucon at Corcyra in 435. 5 Leogoras, father of the 
orator, was, to judge from Aristophanes, famous chiefly 
for his dinners and his pheasants. 6 

The only glimpse of the life of Andocides before 
415 B.C. is afforded by himself. He belonged to a 
set or club, of wdiieh one Euphiletus was a leading 
member, 7 and with which his address " To His Associ- 
ates " (tt/009 tou9 eralpovs), mentioned by Plutarch, has 
sometimes been connected. 8 It w r as in May, 415, Affair 

. of the 

when he was about tw x enty-nve, when the Peiraeus Hermae. 

1 [Pint.] Fit. Andoc. yevovs Ev- Att. Bereds. p. 270. 
Trarptdwu, (bs 3e 'EWdvixos, teal curb '' Time. I. 51. 

'Epfwv m Ka6r]K€L yap els avrbv to Kt?- 6 Ar. Vesp. 1269 : JViib. 109, rot's 

pVKGjv yevos. The pseudo - Plutarch (paaLavovsovsrpeipetAeuyopas. A then, 

seems to have inferred from the fact ix. p. 387 a, KWficpdelrac yap 6 Aew- 

that the descent of Andocides was yopas us yaarpifiapyos V7rb UXdrojvos 

traced from Hermes, tliat lie belonged ev llepia\yeu Besides his son An- 

to the priestly family of the KrjpvKes, decides, Leogoras had a daughter 

who represented their ancestor K??pu£ who married Callias a son of Telecles : 

as the son of Hermes (Pans. i. 38. 3). de Myst. § 117 : cf. §§ 42, 50. 
But Plutarch {Alcib. c. 21) tells us 7 Be Myst, §§ 61-63. Euphiletus 

that Hellanicus traced Andocides up is there described as proposing the 

to Odysseus ; the line from Hermes, sacrilege at a convivial meeting of 

then, was not through Ceryx, but the club {el^yiaaro . . .ttivovtwv w&v, 

through Autolycus, whose daughter § 61). Its members were intimate 

Anticleia was mother of Odysseus. associates (e7rm)5«ot, § 63 : cf. oh 

2 Andoc. de Myst. § 106. In de exP" Kal ols ^'vrio-Qa, § 49). There is 
Red. § 26 Valckeniir and Sauppe nothing to show that this club of 
read 6 tov e/jlov irarpbs Trairiros in- young men was anything so serious 
stead of 6 rod ifiov irarpos irpbircLiriros. as a political eraipeia. 

;; Andoc. de Pace, § 6. s Pint, Them. c. 32. See ch. vt, 

4 Schol. Aristid. in. 485, ap. Blass, ad fin. 


was alive with preparations for the sailing of the fleet 
to Sicily, and all men were full of dreams of a new 
empire opening to the city, that Athens was astonished 
by a sacrilege, of which it is hard now to realise the 
precise effect upon the Athenian mind. When it 
appeared that the images of Hermes throughout the 
town — in the market-place, before the doors of houses, 
before the temples — had been mutilated in the night, 
the sense of a horrible impiety was joined to a sense 
of helplessness against revolution ; l for to an Athenian 
it would occur instinctively that the motive of the 
mutilators had been not simply to insult, but to 
estrange, the tutelar gods of the city. This terror, 
while still fresh, was intensified by the rumoured 
travesties in private houses of the innermost sacra- 
ment of Greek religion, the Mysteries of Eleusis. In 
order to understand the position of Andocides, it is 
necessary to keep these two affairs distinct. There is 
nothing to show that he was in any way concerned, 
as accomplice or as informer, with the profanation of 
the Mysteries. As a matter of course, the author of 
the speech against him asserts it : 2 but his own denial 
is emphatic and clear, 3 and agrees with what is known 
from other sources. It was in the affair of the Hermae 
alone that he was implicated. The first important 
evidence in this matter was given by Teucrus, a 
resident-alien, who had fled to Megara, and who was 
brought back to give information under a promise of 

1 Time. VI. 27, kclI to irpay/na - [Lys.] in Andoc. § 51, juujj.ou/ul€i>os 

IJLeL^bvus i\djJL(3avoi>' tov re yap enirXov t<x lepd iiredeiKvve rocs djuvrjroLS, k.t.X. 
olwvbs idoKCL ehcu teal iirl ^vvw/JLOcria :>> Andoc. de Myst. § 29, ire pi \j.kv 

a/ULd vewrepwv irpayjJLarwv /cat drj/xov r(hv jjLVffTrjpiwv ...dirobedeiKTal fxot los 

KaraXijaews yeyevrjadai. Cf. Isocr. ovre rjcre^Ka oi're fiejurjvvKa, k.t.X. 
de Bigis, § 6. 


inrpunity. This man denounced twelve persons as 
guilty in regard to the Mysteries, and eighteen as 
mutilators of the Hermae. Among the eighteen were 
Euphiletus and other members of the club to which 
Andocides belonged ; of whom some were at once put 
to death, and others fled. 1 

But there was a very general belief that the 
bottom of the matter had not been reached, and that 
the conspiracy had been far more widely spread ; a 
belief which the commissioners of enquiry, especially 
Peisancler, seem to have encouraged. As usual in 
such cases, the demand for discoveries created the 
supply. Diocleides, the Titus Oates of this plot, came 
forward to state that the conspiracy included no less 
than three hundred persons. Forty-two of these were 
denounced, among whom were Andocides, his father, 
his brother-in-law and ten other of his relatives. 
They were imprisoned at once ; Diocleides was feasted 
as a public benefactor at the Prytaneion ; and the 
whole town spent the night under arms, panic-stricken 
by the extent of the conspiracy, — not knowing whence, 
when, or in what strength they might be attacked by 
the enemies of gods and men. 2 Andocides has de- 
scribed the first night in prison. Wives, sisters, 
children, who had been allowed to come to their 
friends, joined in their tears and cries of despair. 
Then it was that Charmides, one of his cousins, 
besought him to tell all that he knew, and to save his 
father, his relations and all the innocent citizens who 
were threatened with an infamous death. Andocides 
yielded. He was brought before the Council, and 

1 Be Myst. § 35. - Be Myst. § 45. 


stated that the story of Teucrus was true. The 
eighteen who had died or fled were indeed guilty. 
But there were four more whom Teucrus had left 
out, and whom Andoeides now named. These four 
fled. 1 

The deposition of Andoeides, confirming as it did 
the testimony of Teucrus, and at the same time sup- 
plementing that testimony, was accepted, at least at 
the time, as the true and complete account. The 
affair of the Hermae was dropped, and attention was 
fixed once more upon the affair of the Mysteries.' 2 
At some time not much later, Leogoras, the father of 
Andoeides, rained an action which he brought against 
the senator Speusippus, who had illegally committed 
for trial Leogoras and the other persons accused by 
the slave Lydus of having profaned the Mysteries in 
the house of his master Pherecles. 3 Andoeides himself 
was less fortunate. He had odven his information 
under a promise of personal indemnity guaranteed by 
a decree of the ecclesia. After his disclosures, how- 
Decree of ever, a new decree, proposed by Isotimides, cancelled 
the former. It provided that those who had com- 
mitted impiety and confessed it should be excluded 
from the market-place and from the temples ; a form 
of " disgrace" (atimia) virtually equivalent to banish- 
ment. Andoeides w r as considered as falling under 
this decree, and was accordingly driven to leave 

This closes the first chapter of his life. Two 

1 Dc Myst. § 68. clvtov Xoyov kclI tt)s i-vvufjiocrias eirl 

2 Time. VI. 61, eirei^rj to tCov "Ep- tlo drj/JLu air e/cetVou (rod ' A\ki(3l&5ov) 
jjlQ)v ujovto acupes eyziv ^ 7ro\v 8r] fiaWou <e56k€l -Kpztydriv&i, 



questions directly arising out of it suggest themselves 
for consideration here. 

First, Does the speech On the Mysteries give the The speech 
story which he really told before the Council at Athens Mysteries. 
in 415 ? In that speech, he represents himself as 
having stated that the mutilation of the Hermae had 
been proposed by Euphiletus at a convivial meeting 
of their club ; that he had strenuously opposed it ; 
and that, while he was confined to his house by 
illness, Euphiletus had seized the opportunity of 
executing the scheme, telling the others that Ando- 
cides had become favourable to it. Now it is a 
suspicious fact that in the speech On his Return, 
spoken in 410 — that is, eleven years before the speech 
( hi the Mysteries — Andocides distinctly pleads guilty 
to certain offences committed in 415, and excuses 
them by his youth, his folly, his madness at the 
time. 1 It is suspicious, also, that not merely the 
author of the speech against him, 2 but also Thucydides 
in terms which can hardly be explained away, 3 and 
Plutarch still more explicitly, 4 represent him as having 
accused himself along with the rest. It can hardly 
be doubted that, in 415, he told the Council that the 
mutilation of the Hermae had been a mad freak com- 
mitted by the club of young men to which he belonged, 

1 J)c Red. §§ 7, 25. participation in the fact. And so 

- [Lys.] in Andoe. §§ 36, 51. Mr. Grote understands them, vol. 

3 Time. vi. 60, Kal 6 uh clvtos re vn. p. 279. 

nad' eavTov Kal kolt aKkwv /j,r)i>u€i to 4 Plut. Ale. 21, outos (Tlficuos) 

rCov ''Yipn&v. Bishop Thirlwall thinks avaireidei. rbv : AvboKibiqv iavrov kclt- 

that this need not mean more than rjyopov Kal tivwv dWccv yeveaOat. jjltj 

that Andocides confessed privity to iroWQiv . . . b 'Avdoddris eire'tadr) Kal 

the fact (Hist. Gr. vol. HI. Appendix yevbfxcvos /itjvvttjs /ca#' clvtov Kal Kad' 

ill. p. 500). But the words would irepcov eax 6 T W ? K T °v ^(ftianaTos 

naturally mean that he confessed adecav avrbs' ovs 8' (Jovbjuaae, k.t.\. 


and by himself among the number. Probably he felt 
that it would be useless to make a reservation of his 
own innocence. No one would believe him ; and 
at the same time it would seriously damage the 
plausibility of his alleged acquaintance with the 
plans of the conspirators. It is very likely, how- 
ever, that he did make excuses for himself, such 
as that his active part in the affair had been 
small, or that he had been drawn into it against 
his will, or in a moment of excitement, At the 
distance of sixteen years such excuses might easilv 
grow into a denial of his having been concerned 
at all. 

It is a further question whether, supposing that 
the story which he told at the time inculpated 
himself, this story was true. Was he really guilty ? 
It ought to be remembered that the eighth book of 
Thucydides was probably written before the speech 
On the Mysteries had been delivered, or the exiles 
of 415 had returned; and that, therefore, we have 
perhaps larger materials than Thucydides himself had 
for forming a judgment on an affair which (as he 
says) had never been cleared up. 1 Great weight 
ought surely to be allowed to the circumstance that 
the Hermes before the house of Andocides was one 
of the very few T - which had not been mutilated. The 
explanation of this given by Andocides himself in 
399 is at least plausible. Euphiletus, he says, had 
told the other conspirators that Andocides had him- 

1 Time. VI. 60. Pint. Ale. 21 says ev oXljols tt&vv t&v 

2 The only one — fiovos rCov f Ep/u<2v eirLcpavuv jjlovos a%^ov dnepaios e/metpe : 
twv 'Adfyrjo-iv, according to Anelo- and Time. vi. 27 says only ol 7rXet- 
eides himself, dc My at. § 62. But <ttol TrepieKOTrrjaav. 


self undertaken the mutilation of this particular 
image ; and so it escaped, Andoeides being ill and 
ignorant of the whole matter. Now if Euphiletus 
had a spite against Andoeides for having condemned 
his proposal, he could not, in fact, have taken a more 
effectual revenge. The sparing of this Hermes was 
just the circumstance, which, in the event, turned 
suspicion most strongly upon Andoeides. Had he 
been out himself that night and engaged in the 
sacrilege, he could scarcely have failed to think of a 
danger so evident, and would have taken care that 
his own house should not be marked out by its 
immunity. If the number of mutilators was as small 
as he states, the neglect of such a precaution is 
altogether inconceivable. The conjecture to which 
we should incline is that the Hermae were mutilated 
by the small club of young men to which Andoeides 
belonged, but that, for some reason or other, he had 
no hand in it ; that, however, when he gave his 
evidence at the time, he accused himself of having 
been actively concerned, thinking that otherwise the 
rest of his story would be disbelieved. It would 
follow that the version of the matter given in his 
speech On the Mysteries is, on the whole, true in 
itself, but is untrue as a representation of what he 
stated in 415. 

The second chapter in the life of Andoeides covers Life of 
the years from 415 to 402. It is the history oi his from 415 

to 402. 


On leaving Athens in 415 he appears to have 
adopted a merchant's life, Archelaus, king of Mace- 
donia, a friend of his family, gave him the right 


of cutting timber and exporting it. 1 In Cyprus, 
according to the author of the speech against him, 
he was imprisoned by the king of Citium on account 
of some treachery; 2 a story from which it would 
be unsafe to infer more than that Andocides had 
visited the island. When, after the Sicilian disaster, 
Samos became the headquarters of the Athenian fleet, 
he endeavoured to conciliate his countrymen there by 
supplies of corn and cargoes of oar - spars and of 
bronze, which his mercantile connexion enabled him 
His first to get for them at a cheap rate."' In the spring of 

return to . 

Athens. 411 he made his first attempt to re-establish himsell 
at Athens. He was unaware, at the moment of his 
return, that the revolution of the Four Hundred had 
taken place. The hatred of the oligarchical clubs, 
incurred by his denunciation of his own associates, 
and the enmity of Peisander, whose desire to keep up 
a panic had been thwarted by his reassuring dis- 
closures, would have been enough to have prevented 
him from expecting any other reception than that 
which he actually experienced. 4 He was instantly 
denounced to the Council by Peisander for supplying 
oars to the hostile democracy at Samos, and was 
thrown into prison.' Released by the downfall of 
the oligarchy, he again visited Cyprus, — where, 

1 Andoe. cle Red. § 11. Cf. the "praise" of the Four Hundred 

Theophr. Char, xxiii., where the for having ministered to the army at 

d\a£iav boasts of having received. Samos. Earlier in the narrative, 

as a special honour from Antipater. indeed, (§ 11) he says that he brought 

the i^aycoyy] %v\oov areX?;s. the supplies to Samos "when the 

- [Lvs.] in Andoc. % 26. Four Hundred had already seized the 

government;" but this is a way of 

"' De Med - § n ' fixing the date. It does not follow 

4 He says {dc lied. § 13) KariirXevcra that the tidings from Athens had 

cos eir cuved 7)cr bfjiev os virb rcov ivd&Se : then reached Samos, 
and he would hardly have expected 7> I)e Bed. § 15. 


return to 

according to his accuser, he was once more imprisoned 
"for a misdeed" — this time by Evagoras king of 
Salamis ; x but we may hesitate whether to recognise 
here the monotony of fate or of invention. 

In Cyprus Andocides found a new opportunity 
to serve the interests of Athens. The loss of her 
power in the Propontis had cut off her corn - trade 
with the Euxine ; and Andocides procured the de- 
spatch of corn - ships from Cyprus to the Peiraeus. 
It must have been in the spring or summer of 410, His 
before the results of the victory at Cyzicus had Athens 
removed all fear of famine, 2 that Andocides was again 
at Athens, and in a speech in the ecclesia pleaded 
for the removal of the disabilities under which the 
decree of Isotimides was held to have placed him. 
He expresses penitence for his errors in 415; and 
lays stress upon certain information which he had 
given to the Senate, as well as upon his services in 
procuring a supply of corn. 8 His application was 
rejected; and for the third time he went into exile. 
D urine; the next ei<?ht years he is said to have visited 
Sicily, Italy, the Peloponnesus, Thessaly, the Helles- 
pont, Ionia and Cyprus. 4 In Cyprus he had received, 
perhaps from Evagoras, a grant of land ; 5 and the 
fortune which afterwards enabled him to discharge 
costly offices at Athens, although his patrimony had 
been wrecked, 6 appears to show that he had been 
active and successful as a merchant. 

1 [Lys.] in Ancluc. § 28. r> In Dc Must. J; 4 lie supposes his 

2 For a discussion of the date of enemies saying of him — evn irketi- 
the speech On his Return, see aavTt els Kvwpov, odevirep tjkcl, yrj 
Chap. VI. ttoWt] kclI dyadrj didopLevr) Kal dojpea 

:; Dc Red. §§ 19 ft". virdpxovaa. 

4 [Lys.] in A,uh>c. § t>. (; ib. § 144, 


The general amnesty of 403 at last gave him the 
opportunity which he had so long sought in vain. 
He returned to Athens from Cyprus, 1 probably about 
the beginning of 402 \- and for three years was not 
only unmolested, but was readmitted to the .employ- 
ments and honours of an active citizen. He was a 
choregus, and dedicated in the Street of Tripods the 
prize which he had won with a cyclic chorus ; 3 he 
was gymnasiarch at the Hephaestia — head of sacred 
missions to the Isthmian and Olympian games — and 
steward of the sacred treasure ; 4 he is heard of as 
speaking in the Senate and preferring accusations in 
the law-courts. 5 At length, in 399,° the zeal of his 
enemies — stimulated, perhaps, by his prosperity — 
appears to have revived. After one attempt which 
seems to have been abortive, 7 he was brought to trial, 
in the autumn of 399, on a charge of impiety. He 
had attended the Greater Mysteries at Eleusis ; and 

1 De Myst. § 4. 899 is confirmed by another con- 

2 The contest between the exiles sideration. In dc Myst, § 132 the 
at the . Peiraeus • and the town party offices which he had held are enu- 
was not finally concluded till Boe- nierated in apparently ehronologi- 
dromion (Sept, -Oct.) 403 B.C. See cal order :—7t P lotov ixev yvfivaaiap- 
Clinton, F. H. At the time when X ov "RQcuaTioLS, 'iireiTa dpxtOecapbv 
the amnesty was sworn, Andocides €ls 'l^dfibv koI '0\i'/*7ri'afo etra 8e 
was absent from Athens: [Lys.] in rafxiau kv woXei tuv LepQv xpw*™i>. 
Andoc, § 39. It seems safe, then, to ^ow the Olympic festival at which 
conclude that he did not return to lie was dpxidewpos must have been 
Athens before the early part of 402. that of 01. 95. 1, 400 u.c. After 

* n-n xi TT-t a 7 this architheoria he had been tamias ; 

3 [Pint.] Vit. Andoc. i,!, i i 

but clearly was so no longer at the 

4 I)e M y sL § 132 - time when the speech On the 

5 [Lys.] in Andoc. % 33, irapaaKev- Mysteries was spoken. 

dferat r<x ttoXltlkcl -Rpdrreiv nai rfdrj 7 [Lys.] in Andoc. § 30, a^c/co^e- 
drjfirjyopeT. Cf. ib. §11, where men- vos € ls rr\v ttq\lv dls kv rip avrcp [op- 
tion is made of a ypatpT) daepeias aur £ ?] ivdedeiKTcu. Neither Ando- 
brought by Andocides against one cides nor his accuser says anything 
Archippus. about the result of the earlier evdei&s : 
(i Three years after his return to probably, then, it never came to a 
Athens : de Myst; % 132. The date trial. 


his enemies contended that he had thereby violated 
the decree of Isotimides, by which he was excluded 
from all temples. Before the Eleusinian festival was 
over, 1 an information to this effect was laid before 
the Archon Basileus. The accusers were Cephisius, 
Epichares and Meletus, supported by Callias and 
Agyrrhius. The fact that Andocides was supported 
in court by Anytus and Cephalus, 2 two popular 
public men, as well as by advocates chosen by 
his tribe, shows that his assiduous services to the 
State, and perhaps the persevering malice of his 
adversaries, had at last produced their effect upon 
the general feeling towards him. He speaks like 
a man tolerably confident of a verdict ; and he was 

Little is known of the life of Andocides after 399. 
From the speech On the Mysteries it appears that 
he was at that time unmarried and childless. 3 His 
uncle Epilycus had died leaving two daughters, whom 
Andocides and Leagrus, as the nearest kinsmen, had 
claimed in marriage before the Archon. The girl 
claimed by Andocides had died before the claim was 
heard ; the other was now claimed by Callias, who 
had induced Leagrus to retire in his favour, and 
Andocides, to defeat this intrigue, had entered a 
counter-claim ; but in 399 the case was still unde- 
cided. 4 If Andocides died without legitimate issue, 
his family became extinct. 5 

The first reappearance of Andocides in public life 

1 The great Eleusinia fell in the fivo-Trjpiois tovtols, de Myst. § 121. 

last half of Boedromion (end of »niir*a-i~r\ i -i q -i to 

o 4. ax.-- e r* A rn " De Myst. § loO. 3 ib. § 148. 

Sept. and beginning of Oct.) The 

€v5ei%(.s was laid reus eiK&ai, rots 4 ib. §§ 117-123. 5 ib. § 146. 



is marked by the speech On the Peace with Lace- 
daemon, which belongs to 390, the fourth year of the 
Corinthian War. 1 Athens, Boeotia, Corinth and 
Argos were at this time allied against Sparta. The 
success of Agesilaus in 391 had led the Athenians, 
probably in the winter of 391-90, to send pleni- 
potentiaries, among whom was Andocides, to treat 
for peace at Sparta. According to the terms pro- 
posed by the Lacedaemonians, Athens was to retain 
her Long Walls — rebuilt three years before by Conon 
— and her fleet ; she was also to recover Lemnos, 
Imbros and Scyros : and Boeotia was to be gratified 
by the withdrawal of the Spartan garrison from Or- 
chomenus. The plenipotentiaries did not use their 
powers, but requested that the Athenian ecclesia 
might have forty days in which to consider these 
proposals ; and returned, accompanied by Spartan 
envoys, to Athens. 2 It was in the ensuing debate — 
early in the year 390 — that the speech of Andocides 
was made. 

This, his only recorded utterance on a public 

1 From tlie speech itself it appears Kriiger places the speech of An- 
that (1) the Boeotians had been now docides in 393 : Grote and Kirchner 
four years at war, § 20 : (2) Lechaeum in 391; but the data above men- 
had been taken by the Lacedae- tioned seem in favour of 390 : which 
monians, § 18 : (3) The Lacedae- is the year for which Blass decides 
monians are spoken of as having (Att. Berecls. pp. 282 f.). 
been already thrice victorious — at 2 Xenophon and Diodorus say 
Corinth, Coronea, and Lechaeum ; nothing about such an embassy from 
and nothing is said of any check Sparta to Athens. But, according 
which they had received : § 18. The to the author of the Argument to 
destruction of the mora by Iphicrates the Speech, <§i\6xopos fltv odv \eyet 
— so tremendous a blow to the Spartan /cat i\6e?v roi)s irpeafieis 4k Aa/ce5cu- 
arms — can hardly, then, have taken fiouias /ecu dirpaKrovs avekdelv /at] -rrd- 
place. Grote puts the victory of ctclptos rod 'Ap8okl8ov. Philochorus, 
Iphicrates in 390 : see his note, vol. writing circ. 300-260 B.C., is a 
ix. p. 455, which discusses Clinton's trustworthy witness for the fact of 
view that it occurred in 393. the embassy. 


question, is temperate and sensible. He points out 
that it is idle to wait either for the prospect of 
crushing Sparta in war, or for the prospect of recover- 
ing by diplomacy all the possessions abroad which 
Athens had lost in 405 ; her ships and walls are now, 
as they always were, her true strength, and she ought 
to accept thankfully the secured possession of these. 
The soundness of this view was proved in the sequel. 
By the Peace of Antalcidas three years later Athens 
got only what she was offered in 390 ; and she got it, 
not by treaty on equal terms with a Hellenic power, 
but as part of the price paid by the Persian king for 
the disgraceful surrender of Asiatic Hellas. The 
advice of Andocides probably lost something of its 
effect through the suspicion of "laconism" attaching 
to all statesmen of oligarchical antecedents ; and, 
though he had long cast in his lot with the demo- 
cracy, a certain odour of oligarchy must have clung 
to him still. At any rate his advice w r as not 
taken. The story that he was not only disobeyed, 
but banished, 1 probably represents merely the 
desire to add one disaster more to a history so full 
of repulses. 

A fair estimate of Andocides is made difficult by character 
the fact that he was first brought into notice by a cides. 
scandal, and that the memory of this scandal runs 
through nearly all that is known of his after-life. At 
the age of twenty-five he is banished for the Hermae 
affair; he is defeated, on the same ground, in two 
attempts to return ; at the end of sixteen years he is 

1 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. ireficpdels 5e irepl ttjs elprjvrjs els A.aKe5aiju.ova kclI 86tja.$ 
adiKelv e(pvy€. 


brought to trial for impiety ; and his acquittal is the 
last thing recorded about him. At that time he was 
only forty-one; already, since his return in 402, he 
had discharged public services : and now, formally 
acquitted of the charges which had so long hung over 
him, he might hope for a new career. His speech 
On the Peace shows that in 390 he was sufficiently 
trusted by his fellow -citizens to have been sent as 
a plenipotentiary to Sparta ; and proves also, by its 
statesmanlike good sense, his fitness for such a trust. 
But, except in this speech, nothing is recorded of his 
later and probably brighter years. History knows 
him only under a cloud. It was, moreover, his mis- 
fortune that while the informations which he laid in 
415 made him hateful to the oligarchs, his hereditary 
connexion with oligarchy exposed him to the con- 
tinual suspicion of the democrats. One year he is 
imprisoned by the Four Hundred ; the next he is 
repulsed by the ecclesia. It would be an easy infer- 
ence that there must have been something palpably 
bad and false in the man to whom both parties were 
harsh, did not a closer view show that one party may 
have been influenced by spite and the other by pre- 
judice. Many of those who believed that Andocides 
was concerned in the mutilation of the Hermae must 
have regarded him with sincere horror. But on the 
other hand it should be remembered that such horror 
is never so loudly expressed, and is never so useful 
to personal enmity, as at a time when a popular 
religion, still generally professed, is beginning to be 
widely disbelieved. Diagoras and Socrates were 
accused of impiety with the more effect because the 


views ascribed to them resembled the real views of 
many who seemed orthodox. Besides those who 
hated Andocides as an informer, as an oligarch, or as 
an iconoclast, there wxre probably many who regarded 
him with that special kind of dislike which attaches 
to a person who drives the world into professing 
angry conviction on matters to which it is secretly 
indifferent. Viewed apart from the feelings which 
worked on his contemporaries, the facts of his life 
seem to warrant severe blame as little as they warrant 
high praise. His youthful associates were dissolute ; 
through them he was involved, rightly or wrongly, in 
the suspicion of a great impiety ; and this suspicion 
clung to him for years. But it was never proved ; 
and when he was at last brought to trial, he was 
acquitted. As an exile he conferred on Athens 
services which, if not disinterested, were at all events 
valuable ; after his return he discharged costly public 
services, and represented the State on an important 

To judge from his extant works he had not genius, 
but he was energetic and able. Hard and various 
experiences had sharpened his shrewdness ; he had 
a quick insight into character, and especially the 
triumphant skill of a consciously unpopular man in 
exposing malignant motives. There was no noble- 
ness in his nature, except such as is bred by self- 
reliance under long adversity ; but he had practical 
good sense, which his merchant's life in exile must 
have trained and strengthened. If the counsel which 
he gives to Athens in his speech On the Peace with 
Lacedaemon may be taken as a sample of his states- 

86 THE ATTIC ORATORS chap, iv 

manship, he was an adviser of the kind rarest in the 
ecclesia ; not only clearsighted in the interests of the 
city, but bold enough to recommend to Athenians a 
safe rather than a brilliant course. 



Andocides differs in one important respect from all 
the other Attic orators of the canon. He is not an 
artist. Each of the rest represents some theory, 
more or less definite, of eloquence as an art ; and is 
distinguished, not merely by a faculty, but by cer- 
tain technical merits, the result of labour directed 
to certain points in accordance with that theory. 
Among these experts Andocides is an amateur. 
In the course of an eventful life he spoke with ability 
and success on some occasions of great moment and 
great difficulty. But he brought to these efforts 
the minimum of rhetorical training. He relied almost 
wholly on his native wit and on a rough, but shrew r d, 
knowledge of men. 

This accounts for the comparatively slight atten- 
tion paid to Andocides by the ancient rhetoricians 
and critics. Dionysius mentions him only twice ; 
once, where he remarks that Thucydides used a 
peculiar dialect, which is not employed by " Ando- 
cides, Antiphon, or Lysias ; " l again, where he says 

1 Dion vs. dc Thuc. c. 51. 


that Lysias is the standard for contemporary Attic, 
"as may be judged from the speeches of Andocides, 
Critias and many others." 1 Both these notices re- 
cognise Andocides as an authority for the idiom of 
his own day ; and it is evident that he had a 
philological interest for the critic. On the other 
hand it is clear that Dionysius discovered in him no 
striking power ; for Andocides does not occur in his 
long list of men foremost in the various depart- 
ments of oratory.' 2 Quintilian names him only in 
one slighting allusion. Who, he asks, is to be our 
model of Attic eloquence ? " Let it be Lysias ; for his 
is the style in which the lovers of ' Atticism ' delight. 
At this rate we shall not be sent back all the way 
to Andocides and Coccus." 3 It has been thought 
that Quintilian refers to the Coccus mentioned by 
Suidas as a pupil of Isocrates ; but, however this 
may be, the context is enough to show that he 
means to mark, not the antiquity, but the inferiority 
(in his view) of the two men. When Herodes Atticus 
was told by his Greek admirers that he deserved 
to be numbered with the Attic Ten, he turned off 
the compliment, with an adroitness which his bio- 
grapher commends, by saying — " At all events I am 
better than Andocides." 4 More definite censure is 
expressed in the compact criticism of Hermogenes : — 

1 de Lys. c. 2. rcmittemur. 

., , r in a- 4 Philostratus, Vit. Her. Att. n. 1. 

- de Isaco, cc. 19 if. n „ t , nt . ' 

§ 14, p. 564 ed. Kayser. pouxirjs oe 

3 Quint, xil. 10. § 21. Nam quis £ir' avrbv rijs 'EWados koI Ka\o{iar\s 

crit hie Atticus? Sit Lysias; hunc avrbv eva tuju dew, ovx ^tttjOt] rod 

enim amplectuntur amatores istius eiraivov, /aeydXov Sokovvtos, d\X' aarei- 

nominis modum. Non igitur iam orara -irpos rovs eiraiveaavTas, 'AvBok'i- 

v.sque ad Coccum et Andocidem Sov juh, ecpy], fieKriwv dpi. 


" Andocicles aims at being a political orator, but 
does not quite achieve it. His figures want clear 
articulation ; his arrangement is not lucid ; he con- 
stantly tacks on clause to clause, or amplifies in an 
irregular fashion, using parentheses to the loss of a 
distinct order. On these accounts he has seemed to 
some a frivolous and generally obscure speaker. Of 
finish and ornament his share is small ; he is equally 
deficient in fiery earnestness. Again, he has little, 
or rather very little, of that oratorical power which 
is shown in method ; general oratorical power he has 
almost none." 1 

The phrase " political oratory" as used by Her- 
mogenes has two senses, a larger and a narrower. 
In the larger sense it denotes all public speaking 
as opposed to scholastic declamation, and comprises 
the deliberative, the forensic, the panegyric styles. 
In the narrower sense it denotes practical oratory, 
deliberative or forensic, as opposed not only to 
scholastic declamation but also to that species of 
panegyric speaking in which no definite political 
question is discussed. 2 Here, the narrower sense is 

1 Hermog. ire pi ibewv, B. c. XI. ov8' oXojs. 
(vol. 11. p. 416 Spengel Bhct. Gr.) : — - For the larger sense, see ire pi 

6 de 'AvdoKidrjs ttoXltlkos {jlev etVat ibeCov, B. e. X. irepl tov ttoXltlkov 

irpoaLpeiTcu, ov fxiqv irdw ye enrnvy- \6yov : in winch, chapter he says, 

X&vzi toijtoV ddi&pdpajTOS yap eariv rovrov de tov Xoyov tov ttoXltlkov b 

ev tols axVl uacrL KCLL ddtevKplvrjros kclI fiev ecrrc crvpL^ovXevTLKOS 6 5e BiKavi- 

ra iroXXd iiTL(rvvdirT€L re /cat irepifi&X- kos 6 Be TravrjyvpiKos. For the narrower 

\ei ard/crws did to tolls eirepLfioXcus sense, see c. XI. irepl tov d-rrXios 

Xwpts evKpiveias Xjot?(T#cu, 66 ev ebot,e ttoXltlkov \6yov : and c. XII. irepl 

tlo~l (pXvapos /cat aUws daacprjs elvac tov dirXCos TravrjyvpLKov. It is in 

e7TLjue\eias de clvtQ /cat ko<j/llov irdvv the narrower sense — that is, as 

(3paxv pLeTeaTi, yopyoTTjTos re tbcrav- including deliberative and forensic 

tcos. /cat fievTOL /cat ttjs KtxTa pcedo- speaking only, and excluding all 

8ou deivoT-rjTos oXlyov dXXd /cat o*(p6- epideictic speaking, on whatever 

8pa oXiyou e%et, ttjs <5' dXXrjs (rx eSov subject — that ttoXltlkos Xoyos is gener- 


intended. When Hermogenes says that Andocicles 
does not succeed in being a " political'' speaker, he 
means that Andocides does not exhibit — for instance, 
in the speech On his Eeturn and in the speech On 
the Peace — the characteristic excellences of delibera- 
tive speaking ; nor — for instance in the speech On the 
Mysteries — the characteristic excellences of forensic 
speaking. What Hermogenes took these excellences 
to be, he explains at length in another place ; the 
chief of them are these three : — clearness ; the stamp 
of truth ; fiery earnestness. 1 

The first and general remark of Hermogenes upon 
Andocides implies, then, that he is wanting in these 
qualities. The special remarks which follow develop 
it. They refer partly to his arrangement of subject- 
matter, partly to his style of diction. He is said 
to have little " power " (or "cleverness") " of method"; 
that is, little tact in seeing where, and how, each 
topic should be brought in; 2 he "amplifies" 3 un- 

ally used : see e.g. the 'P^ropi/c?; irpbs toric. It is a treatise upon Rhe- 

'AXe^avdpov, c. I. (Spengel), duo yevrj torical Tact. By 77 aXX?; deivoTyjs 

t£ov ttoXltlkuv elal \byuv, to /nev drjfxrj- lie means simply what he speaks 

yopacbv to 8e ducaviKOP. Cf. Isocr. of in ire pi Id. B. c. XI., ire pi 8eii>0T7)- 

kcltcl <ro<p. § 19. ros : — oratorical power in the largest 

1 See 7rept to. B. c. x. passim : esp. and most general sense, including all 
ad init. (prjpX tolvvv 8e?v kv to: tol- particular excellences whatsoever. 
ovtcx) Xoycp irXeovd^etu fxev del top re 3 irepLpdWei. Hermogenes uses 
tt]v o-a<pr)veiav iroiovvTa Ttiirov Kal the terms irept^oXr], irepifidXXeiv in 
tov tjBikov re /cat dXrjOr] /cat /*era tov- a special technical sense, for which 
tovs tov yopybv. it is difficult to find any precise 

2 The distinction drawn by Her- English equivalent. "Amplinca- 
mogehes in his criticism upon Ando- tion " perhaps comes nearest. There 
cides between 77 kcltcl fiedodov decvo- are two sorts of irepcpoXr) : (1) tear 
tt)s and what he calls 7/ dWr) detvo- evvoiav — when some special state - 
tt)s is explained by his own writ- ment is prefaced by a general 
ings. His treatise Ilept fxe965ov statement : e.g. irovrjpbv 6 <tvko- 
deivoT-nTos discusses the proper occa- (pdvTr/s del' tovto 8e /cat (pvaei Kivados 
sion {Kcupbs tdios, c. I.) for using TavOpdoindv €<jtl : (2) /cara Xe^, 
the various figures and arts of rhe- when a fact is related with all 


necessarily, by detailing circumstances unnecessary 
for his point ; he obscures the order of his ideas by 
frequent parentheses, or by adding, as an after- 
thought, something which ought to have come earlier. 
As regards diction, in the first place his "figures" 
are said to be "wanting in clear articulation" (aScdp- 
Opcora). Hermogenes elsewhere * enumerates thirteen 
"figures" of rhetoric, which are either certain fixed 
modes of framing sentences, such as the antithesis and 
the period ; or (in the phrase of Caecilius) " figures of 
thought," such as irony and dilemma." Hermogenes 
means that Andocides does not use "figures" of 
either sort with precision; he does not work them 
out to an incisive distinctness ; he leaves them " in- 
articulate" — still in the rough, and with their out- 
lines dull. Again Andocides has little "finish" (eW 
fieXeia) — a, term by which his critic means refinement 
and smoothness in composition. 3 Lastly, Andocides 
is said to be wanting in "fiery earnestness." The 
word yopyoTTjs, which we have attempted thus to 
paraphrase, plays a very important part in the 
rhetorical terminology of Hermogenes : it describes 
one of the three cardinal excellences of "political" 
oratory. 4 Perhaps no simple English equivalent can 

its attendant circumstances : e.g. where lie opposes k&\\os tl /cat cv- 

inreaxo^W X P 7 iyW eLV ' ^ore ; rpirov pvd/xia to to d/deXes /cat appvdjxov : 

e'ros tovtL" ttov ; ev rrj eKKXvaia. did and observes, -rrXelov 8e tl ttjs cin- 

t'l ; ov KaOearr] kotos xopvyovi K - T - ^- fieXeias /cat tov k&Wovs €X 0V<tlv at 

See Herm. irepi 18. A. c. XI. paKpal tQp Xeijeuv /cat 5t' oKiycou 

J Hermog. 7rept evpecreuv A. — Ch. I. cnry/cet/xepat avXXafiujv otov, ire pi 

is wept Xoyov crxy^Tuv in general: tov ttujs clkovelv v/jlcLs epLov del 

cc. 11. -xiv. discuss the several (from Dem. de Coron. § 2). So 

axy/J-a-Ta. the use of short, simple words may 

2 See supra, p. 28. be a mark of iwi/jLeXeLa — showing how 

3 See the chapter 7rept e7rt/xe\etas the notion of refinement conies into it. 
/cat k&XXovs, Hermog. Treplld. A. c. xn. 4 irepi 18. B. c. X. ad init. 


be found for it. But Hermogenes lias explained 
clearly what he means by it. He means earnest 
feeling, especially indignation, uttered in terse, in- 
tense, sometimes abrupt language. It is to a strong 
and noble emotion what " keenness" (6^vt^) and 
" tartness" (ppifivT^) are to a lower kind of eager- 
ness. The lofty invectives of Demosthenes against 
Philip supply Hermogenes with his best examples 
of it. 1 

We have now seen the worst that can be said of 
Andocides from the point of view of the technical 
Ehetoric ; and it must be allowed that, from that 
point of view, the condemnation is tolerably com- 
plete. Now the canon of the Ten Attic Orators was 
probably drawn up at the time when scholastic 
rhetoric was most flourishing, and when, therefore, 
the standard of criticism used by Hermogenes and 
Herodes was the common one. It may seem sur- 
prising, then, that Andocides was numbered in the 
decad at all. Critias, his contemporary, whom so 
many ancient writers praise highly, might be sup- 
posed to have had stronger claims ; and the fact 
that the memory of Critias as a statesman was hate- 
ful, is not enough in itself to explain his exclusion 
from a literary group. 2 Probably one reason, at least, 

1 See tlie chapter irepl yopyoTt]- 6 7rpa)ros : k.t.X., and several other 
ros {irepl 18. B. e. I.). He there passages from the same speech : 
says that yopyoT-qs is the opposite cle falsa Ler/at. § 24. rl yap 


of slackness and languor (to avei- (3ovX6fj.evot k.t.X. 

ILhov teal vtttlov) :— that it usually 2 K. 0. Midler says {Hist. Gr. Lit. 

expresses itself in the trenchant c.xxxni. Vol. n. p. 115->?.,ed. Donald - 

style (did. tov tjx^tikov yiveTai tvttov). son). " It is surprising that Critias was 

He cites as examples of yopyoT^ not rather enrolled among the Ten ; 

the opening of the Third Philippic : but perhaps his having been one of 

also dc Coron. § 10, €<ttl toIwv ovtos the Thirty stood in his way." 


for the preference given to Anclocicles was the great 
interest of the subjects upon which he spoke. The 
speech On the Mysteries, supplying, as it does, the 
picturesque details of a memorable event, had an 
intrinsic value quite apart from its merits as a com- 
position. The speech On the Peace with Lacedae- 
mon, again, gives a clear picture of a crisis in the 
Corinthian War ; and is an illustration, almost unique 
in its way, of Athenian history, at the time just after 
the rebuilding of the walls by Conon, when, for the 
first time since Aegospotami, Athenian visions of 
empire were beginning to revive. As Lycurgus 
seems to have owed his place among the Ten chiefly 
to his prominence as a patriot, so Andocides may 
have been recommended partly by his worth as an 
indirect historian. Again, Dionysius, as we have 
seen, recognised at least the j^ilological value of 
Andocides. It is further possible that even rhetori- 
cians of the schools may have found him interesting 
as an example of merely natural eloquence coming 
between two opposite styles of art; between the 
formal grandeur of Antiphon and the studied ease 
of Lysias. 

It is a result of the precision with which the art General 

• n i i t> tendency 

of rhetoric was systematized in the Greek and Ivoman of ancient 

, i /» i • ... criticism 

schools that much ot the ancient criticism upon upon 
oratory is tainted by a radical vice. The ancient unjust to 
critics too often confound literary merit with oratori- 
cal merit. They judge too much from the standpoint 
of the reader, and too little from the standpoint of 
the hearer. They analyse special features of lan- 
guage and of method ; they determine with nicety 


the rank of each man as a composer ; but they too 
often forget that, for the just estimation of his rank 
as a speaker, the first thing necessary is an effort of 
imaginative sympathy. We must not merely analyse 
his style; we must try to realise the effect which 
some one of his speeches, as a whole, would have 
made on a given audience in given circumstances. 
As nearly all the great orators of antiquity had been 
trained in the rudiments of the technical rhetoric, the 
judgment upon their relative merits is not, as a rule, 
much disturbed by this tendency in their critics. It 
may often, indeed, be felt that the judgment, how- 
ever fair in itself, is based too much upon literary 
grounds. But, in most cases, so far as we can judge, 
no great injustice is done. Criticism of this kind 
may, however, happen to be unjust ; and it has 
certainly been unjust in the case of Andocides. 
Others far excel him in finish of style, in clearness of 
arrangement, in force and in fire ; but no one can 
read the speech On the Mysteries (for instance) 
without feeling that Andocides was a real orator. 
The striking thing in that speech is a certain undefin- 
able tone which assures even the modern reader that 
Andocides was saying the right things to the judges, 
and knew himself to be saying the right things. He 
is, in places, obscure or diffuse ; he sometimes 
wanders from the issue, once or twice into trivial 
gossip ; but throughout there is this glow 7 of a con- 
scious sympathy with his hearers. He may not 
absolutely satisfy the critics ; but he was persuading, 
and he felt with, triumph that he was persuading, the 


It is somewhat difficult to analyse the style of a Four 

. epithets 

speaker whose real strength lay m a natural vigour given to 

... -1 -i • • tne st >' le of 

directed by a rough tact ; and who, m comparison Andocides 

with other Greek orators, cared little for literary ail th or 

form. An attempt at such an analysis may, how- piutarcinc 

ever, start from the four epithets given to Andocides 

in the Plutarchic Life. 1 He is there said to be 

" simple" (aifkovs) ; "inartificial in arrangement" 

(afcardo-Kevos) ; " plain " (cMfreXrjs) ; and "sparing of 

figures " (dcr^fidrLo-To^). The first two epithets 

apparently refer to the order in which his thoughts 

are marshalled ; the last two, to the manner in 

which they are expressed. We will first speak of the 

latter, and then come back to the former. 

The sense in which the diction of Andocides is The diction 

of Ando- 

" plain" will be best understood by a comparison cides is 
with Antiphon and Lysias. Antiphon consciously {d<pe\^), 
strives to rise above the language of daily life ; he 
seeks to impress by a display of art. Lysias care- 
fully confines himself to the language of daily life ; 
he seeks to persuade by the use of hidden art. 
Andocides usually employs the language of daily life ; 
he is free, or almost free, from the archaisms of Anti- 
phon, and writes in the new- Attic dialect, the dialect 
of Lysias and his successors. 2 On the other hand, he 
does not confine himself to a rigid simplicity. In 
his warmer or more vigorous passages, especially of 
invective or of intreaty, he often employs phrases or 

1 [Plut.] Fit. Ancloc. § 15, tan tovto fiev .. tovto 8e (e.g. de Myst. 
5e d-rrXovs kclI oiKardaKevos ev tols § 103 : de Bed. § 16 : de Pace, § 40) : 
\6yoLS, dcpeXrjs re /cat daxn^ TL(TT0S - an( ^ of tne dative 01— avoided, as a 

2 As exceptions may be noted rule, by the other orators : e.g. de 
the frequent use of the formula Myst. §§ 15, 38, 40, 41, 42, etc. 


expressions borrowed from the idiom of Tragedy. 1 
These, being of too decidedly poetical a colour, have 
a tawdry effect ; yet it is evident that they have 
come straight from the memory to the lips ; they are 
quite unlike prepared fine things ; and they remind 
us, in fact, how really natural a speaker was Ando- 
cides, — neither aiming, as a rule, at ornament, nor 
avoiding it on principle when it came to him. The 
" plainness" of Lysias is an even, subtle, concise 
plainness, so scrupulous to imitate nature that nature 
is never suffered to break out; the "plainness" of 
Andocides is that of a man who, with little rhetorical 
or literary culture, followed chiefly his own instinct 
in speaking. Lysias had at his command all the 
resources of technical rhetoric, but so used them 
towards producing a sober, uniform effect, that his art 
is scarcely felt at any particular point ; it is felt only 
in the impression made by the whole. Andocides 
had few of such resources. As his biographer says, 
and sparing he is "sparing of figures." Here the distinction 

of figures 

{&(rxw&- 1 E.g. Be Myst. § 29, ol Xoyot of the idiom (didXeKros) of ordinary 

TicTTos). t q v KaTr )ybpa V ravra ra deiva /cat life. Add to these examples the 

(ppiKudy) avwpdiafyv : (cf. Aesch. use of the poetical (ppevQv in Be 

Choeph. 271, it-opdidfav 7roXXd). lb. lied. § 7, roiavr-qv crvfMpopdv rCbv 

§ 67, tt'kjtlv tCov iv dvdp&irois dirca- (ppevQv : which, however, occurs also 

roTaTTjv. lb. § 68, opQai rod rfkiov in the peroration of Demosth. de 

to (pus — a phrase which, however, Corona, § 324, tovtols /3eXri'w rtvd 

occurs also in the fragment of vovv not cpptvas evdeirjre. Both in- 

the speech of Lycurgus against stances, perhaps, come under the 

Lysicles. lb. § 99, « avKocpdvra principle of Aristotle {Rhet. ill. 7. 

/cat iTviTpLiTTov KivaBos i (cf. Soph. § 11) that unusual or poetical 

Ai. 104, TovTrlrpcTTTOP Kivados). lb. words /j-dXiara dp/uoTTGL Xeyovri 

§ 146 (yevos) ot'xerat 7ra> irpbppi^ov : iradrfTLKCos. The writer of the 

(cf. Soph. Electro, 765 irpopp^ov ... speech kclt 'A\/a/3td5ou has imitated 

ecpdaprai yevos). Be Pace, § 34, the tragic vein which appears in 

eipr}i>7}s irepc : cf. Arist. Poet. c. 22, the genuine speeches of Andocides : 

where the collocation 'Ax^XXews § 22, irapavofxdorepos Myladov ye- 

■n-epL instead of irepi 'AxtXXew? is yovev. Cf. § 23. 
specially instanced as a violation 


already noticed between "figures of language" and 
" figures of thought " must be kept in mind. Ando- 
cides uses scarcely at all the " figures of language' 7 : 
that is, he seldom employs antitheses — aims at 
parallelism between the forms of two sentences — or 
studies the niceties of assonance. 1 His neglect of 
such refinements — which, in his day, constituted the 
essence of oratorical art, and which must have been 
more or less cultivated by nearly all public speakers 
— has one noticeable effect on his composition. 
There is no necessary connexion between an anti- 
thetical and a periodic style. But, in the time of 
Andocides, almost the only period in use was that 
which is formed by the antithesis or parallelism of 
clauses. Hence, since he rarely uses antitheses or 
parallelisms, Andocides composes far less in a periodic 
style than Thucydides or Antiphon or even Lysias. 
His sentences, in the absence of that framework, are 
constantly sprawling to a clumsy length ; they are 
confused by parentheses, or deformed by supplement- 
ary clauses, till the main thread of the sense is often 
almost lost. 2 But while he thus dispenses with the 

1 In technical language, lie seldom tov gpyov did re tt)i> iKeivwv dma- 

attempts, (1) dvridecns, the opposi- riav : another special form, viz. 

tion of words, or of ideas, or of ir a prixy <?<■$, e.g. in De Bed. § 24, 

both, in the two corresponding el yap oaa 61 avdpooTroi rrj yvdjfir, 

clauses of a sentence : (2) Trapiaojais, dixaprdvovai, to aCofxa avr&v /ult] alriov 

a general correspondence between 4cttl, k.t.X. : where there is a general 

the forms of two sentences or resemblance of sound between yv&ix-r] 

clauses : (3) TrapopLoLucris, correspond- and crQfia. But such artifices, so 

ence of sound between words in the common in the other orators, are 

same sentence. See on these, Mr. rare and exceptional in Andocides. 
Sandys's ed. of Isocr. Ad Demoni- 2 See e.g. De Myst. § 57 : el fiev 

cum> and Panegyricus, p. xiv. yap 9ju bvoiv to eTepov ekiadai, i) 

One special form of irapoixoiwais, viz. /caXws dirokeadai 7) cuVxpws ffLodjjvai, 

b/jLOioTeXevTOis, occurs e.g. in Andoc. 6% 0t & v TLS zwelv nadav elvai ra ye- 

De Pace, § 2, did re tijv arreipiav vofxeva' \ /catroi iroWol hv Kal tovto 


9 8 



method of 
is simple 
and in- 


ornamental " figures of language/' Andocides uses 
largely those so-called " figures of thought " which give 
life to a speech : — irony, indignant question, and the 
like. 1 This animation is indeed one of the points 
which most distinguish his style from the ordinary 
style of Antiphon, and which best mark his rela- 
tive modernism. 

As Andocides is " plain 7 ' in diction and avoids 
ornamental figures, so he is also " simple " in treat- 
ment of subject-matter, and avoids an artificial ar- 

eiXovTO, to $tjv irepl irXeiovos itol7]- 
adfxevoi rod koXQs dirodavelv \ oirov 

S€ TOVTWV TO €VOLVTl&TaTOV fjV, | 0-iw- 

irrjaavTi fiev avTCp re a'io~x L 0" ra diro- 
Xeadai fJL7]5h aaeprjvavTi, €tl Be rbv 
iroLTepa wepude'iv diroXofxevov /cat tov 
Krjdearrjv /cat tovs (Tvyyevels /cat dve- 
\pL0vs TOffovrovs, ovs ovBels dircbX- 
\vei> t) ey£o fi7] elirtbv cos erepoi 
ijixapTOv' I AiOKXeidrjs [lev yap \pevcrd- 
/xevos edrjcrev olvtovs, ccor^pta 5e avrQv 
dXXrj ovdefiia 9jv rj irvdeadat 'Adr)- 
vaiovs ir&vTCL tcl irpaxO^vTa' \ (povevs 
odv avT&v eyiyvofx-qv eyu> fir) eiirwv 
vfjuv a -fJKOvaa. 

Here the parenthesis, /cat-rot 7roX\ol 
...rov /caXws dirodavelv, first of all 
disturbs the original plan of the 
antithesis ; this plan is resumed by 
the words oirov Be to evavTidoTaTov 
tjv : but then the speaker goes off 
into a new antithesis, criuirrjo'avTL 
inev, k.t.X., which is never com- 
pleted ; for the clause ovs ovBels 
dircoXXvev rj eyu, k.t.X., leads to a 
new parenthesis in explanation, Ato- 
KXeiB-qs fitv yap...Ta irpaxOevra : 
and the final clause, (povevs odv clvtuv 
€yiyi>6fj.7)v, k.t.X. , is a conclusion 
drawn from this parenthesis, not 
the proper completion of that second 
member of the original antithesis 
which the words* oirov Be to evavTah- 
tqltqv 7\v commenced. 

This is a strong example ; but it 
is typical of the perplexity in which 
many passages of Andocides are 
involved through the same cause — 
imperfect or careless structure of 

1 Among the minor crx??^ara Bta- 
voias used by Andocides, asyndeton 
is one of the most frequent. It 
often adds life and vigour to his 
style : see e.g. De Myst. § 16 : — TpiTt] 
/mrjvvats iyevero. r/ yvvi) 'AX/c/xato- 
viBov, yevo/uLevrj Be /cat Ad/awvos — 
'AyapiaTT) 'ovofxa avry — avTi] ijwqvvcrev, 
k.t.X. : cf. §§ 33, 115, 127. He 
also uses the figure called dvacpopd — 
i.e. the emphatic repetition of a 
word at the beginning of successive 
clauses: and virocpopd — the "sug- 
gestion " of some argument or 
objection which is then refuted. 
In De Myst. § 148, dvacpopd and 
virocpopd occur together: — -Tiva yap 
/cat dj/a/3t/3dcro/xat Beijcro/mevov uirep 
e/juxvTov ; tov irarepa ; dXXd reOvrjKev. 
dXXd tovs dBeXcpovs ; dXX' oi'/c eiaiv. 
dXXd tovs iraWas ; dXX' ovttuj 7576- 
v7]vto.l. xifxels To'ivvv /cat dvrl TTCLTpOS 
ifjiol /cat dvrl dBeXcpwv /cat dvrl 
iraiSojv yeveade' els vjids Karacpevyoj 
/cat dvTLpoXw /cat LKerevw' via els 
fxe 7rap' v/jlCov clvtQv alTrjadfievoL 



rangement. 1 His two speeches before the ecclesia — 
that On his Return and that On the Peace — show, 
indeed, no distinct or systematic partition. In his 
speech On the Mysteries he follows, with one dif- 
ference, the arrangement usually observed by An- 
tiphon and more strictly by Lysias. There is a 
proem, followed by a short prothesis or general state- 
ment of the case ; then narrative and argument ; 
lastly epilogue. 2 But the narrative as a whole is not 
kept distinct from the argument as a whole. Each 
section of the narrative is followed by the corre- 
sponding section of the argument. Dionysius notices 
such interfusion as a special mark of art in Isaeus. 3 
In Andocides it is rather a mark of artlessness. He 
had a long story to tell, and was unable, or did not 

1 As lie is a<pe\r)s and dcx^M- 
tlcttos, so lie is also clttXous and 
aKardcrKevos. The word aKarddKevos 
is, indeed, often closely synony- 
mous with d<peXrjs and &7r\ous : e.g. 
Dionys. Isae. e. 7, aKardcrKevov <pal- 
perat elvai /cat dss dv IduioTrjs tls 
eiireiv bvvairo to elprjjievov : cf. Ernesti, 
Lex. Tech. Gr. Bhet. s.v., who 
quotes from Menander, 5tat/>. eVtS. 
p. 624, eldos a7ra7YeAtas a7rXovi> 
dcpeXes /cat dKardatcevov. But in one 
or two places the usage of Dionysius 
seems to confirm the view that the 
author of the Plutarchic Life of 
Andocides meant dirXovs and a/card- 
<tk€vos to refer mainly to arrange- 
ment of subject-matter, as the 
other two epithets refer mainly to 
diction. Contrasting the method 
of Lysias with the method of Isaeus, 
Dionysius says (Isae. c. 3) : 7rapd 
Avaia /xev ov 7roXXr)i> tt\v eirLTex vr } aLV 
ovt' ev /JLepia/Jiois t&v Trpayjxdrwv 
ovt ev ttj rd£et tlov evdv^jxdrbjv 
oiir ev reus e^epyaaiaLS avrQv (tls) 
frJ/€Tai' d-rrXovs yap 6 dvrjp. Again, 

he says (ib.) that Isaeus "in pro- 
portion as he falls short of the 
other's grace, excels him in clever- 
ness of artificial arrangement" — 6<rov 
dtroXeiireTai ttjs x° l P LT0S iKeivrjs, to- 
crovTOV virepex 7 ] ttj heivoTrpi tt)s 
KCLTacTKevrjs, In the essay of 
Dionysius on Thucydides, again 

(C. 27), TO (pOpTLKOV T7]S Xe£e<jJS KCU 

ctkoXlov /cat dvairapaKoXovdrjTov 
are opposed to to dyeves /cat x a f JLCLL ~ 
tt€T€S /cat aKOuTdaKevov. 

2 Proem, §§ 1-7 : prothesis, §§ 8- 
10 : narrative and argument, §§ 11- 
139 : epilogue, §§ 140-150. 

3 Dionys. Isae. § 14 : tote he \xe- 
piaas avTas (rds dirjyrjcreLs) eis rd 
KecpdXaca, /cat 7ra/)' €kcl<jtov clvt&v Tas 
7rtVrets irapaTLdeis, eKfirjKvvei re /maXXov 
/cat e/c/3atVet to ttjs dirjyya-eojs axviua, 
Tip vviMpepovTL xp&l^evos : ' ' sometimes 
he divides his statement under 
heads ; and, presenting the proofs 
under the several heads, adds some- 
what to the length of the narrative, 
while he departs, as may be ex- 
pedient, from its strict form." 


has little 
skill in the 
places of 

try, to tell it concisely. The very length of his nar- 
rative compelled him to break it up into pieces and 
to comment upon each piece separately. He has not 
effected this without some loss of clearness, and one 
division of the speech is thoroughly confused. 1 But 
it should be remembered that a defective ordering of 
topics, though a grave fault, was less serious for 
Andocides than it would have been for a speaker in a 
different style. The main object of Andocides was 
to be in sympathy with his audience — amusing them 
with stories, however irrelevant — putting all his ar- 
guments in the most vivid shape — and using abund- 
ant illustration. Lucid arrangement, though always 
important, was not of firstrate importance for him. 
His speeches were meant to carry hearers along with 
them rather than to be read and analysed at leisure. 

But it is not merely in special features of diction 
or of arrangement that Andocides is seen to be no 
technical rhetorician. A disciple of the sophistical 

rhetorical rhetoric learned to deal copiously and skilfully with 

argument. x J J 

those commonplaces of argument which would be 
available in almost any case. His education taught 
him to prefer general argument to argument from 
particular circumstances, unless these were especially 
easy to manipulate. We see this in Antiphon's First 
Tetralogy : it is a model exercise in making the ut- 
most of abstract probabilities as inferred from facts 
which are very slightly sketched. In the speech On 
the Murder of Herodes the statement of the facts is 
hurried over, and there is no attempt at a close and 
searching analysis of them. But for a speaker un- 

1 §§ 92-150. 


skilled in rhetorical commonplace the particulars of 
any given subject would be everything. Picturesque 
narration, shrewd inference from small circumstances, 
lively illustration of character, would naturally be his 
chief resources. And so it is with Andocides. His strength 
strength is in narrative, as the strength of Antiphon cides in 

, . , , . -, . narrative. 

is in argument. Andocides relies on his case, 
Antiphon on his science ; it is only Lysias who hits 
the masterly mean, who makes his science the close 
interpreter of his case, who can both recount and 
analyse. But, although the narrative element in 
Andocides exceeds the just proportion always ob- 
served by Lysias, it is, from a literary point of view, 
a great charm. The speech On the Mysteries is full 
of good bits of description, lively without set effort 
to be graphic. For instance, the scene in the prison, 
when Andocides was persuaded to denounce the real 
mutilators of the Hermae : — 

" When we had all been imprisoned in the same- 
place ; when night had come, and the gaol had been 
closed ; there came, to one his mother, his sister to 
another, to another his wife and children ; and there 
arose a piteous sound of weeping and lamentation 
for the troubles of the hour. Then Charmides (he 
was my cousin, of my own age, and had been brought 
up with me in our house from childhood) said to me : 
— ' Andocides, you see how serious our present dangers 
are ; and though hitherto I have always shrunk from 
saying anything to annoy you, I am forced by our 
present misfortune to speak now. All your intimates 
and companions except us your relations have either 
been put to death on the charges which threaten us 


with destruction, or have taken to flight and pro- 
nounced themselves guilty. If you have heard any- 
thing about this affair which has occurred, speak it 
out, and save our lives — save yourself in the first 
place, then your father, whom you ought to love very 
dearly, then your brother-in-law, the husband of your 
only sister, — your other kinsmen, too, and near 
friends, so many of them ; and me also, who have 
never given you any annoyance in all my life, but am 
most zealous for you and for your interests, whenever 
anything is to be done.' When Charmides said this, 
judges, and when the others besought and entreated 
me severally, I thought to myself, — ' most miserable 
and unfortunate of men, am I to see my own kinsfolk 
perish undeservedly — to see their lives sacrificed and 
their property confiscated, and in addition to this 
their names written up on tablets as sinners against 
the gods, — men who are wholly innocent of the 
matter, — am I to see moreover three hundred Athe- 
nians doomed to undeserved destruction and the State 
involved in the most serious calamities, and men 
nourishing suspicion against each other, — or shall I 
tell the Athenians just what I heard from Euphiletus 
himself, the real culprit ? ' " a 

Another passage in the same speech illustrates the 
skill of Andocides in dramatising his narrative. He 
delighted to bring in persons speaking. Epichares, 
one of his accusers in this case, had been an agent of 
the Thirty Tyrants. He turns upon him. 

1 Be My st. §§ 48-51. Compare, moonlight the conspirators meeting 

as another graphic passage, the in the orchestra of the theatre of 

account in §§ 38-40 of the story told Dionysus, 
by Diocleides — how he had seen by 


" Speak, slanderer, accursed knave — is this law 
valid or not valid \ Invalid, I imagine, only for this 
reason, — that the operation of the laws must be dated 
from the archonship of Eucleides. So you live, and 
walk about this city, as you little deserve to do ; you 
who, under the democracy, lived by pettifogging, and 
under the oligarchy — lest you should be forced to 
give back all the profits of that trade — became the 
instrument of the Thirty. 

" The truth is, judges, that as I sat here, while he 
accused me, and as I looked at him, I fancied myself 
nothing else than a prisoner at the bar of the Thirty. 
Had this trial been in their time, who would have 
been accusing me ? Was not this man ready to 
accuse, if I had not given him money ? He has 
done it now. And who but Charicles would have 
been cross-examining me ? ' Tell me, Andocides, did 
you go to Deceleia, and enforce the hostile garrison 
on your country's soil?' — 'Not L' — 'How then? 
You ravaged the territory, and plundered your fellow- 
citizens by land or sea?' — 'Certainly not.' — 'And 
you did not serve in the enemy's fleet, or help to 
level the Long Walls, or to abolish the democracy ? ' 
— ' None of these things have I clone.' — l None ? Do 
you think, then, that you will enjoy impunity, or 
escape the death suffered by many others ? ' 

" Can you suppose, judges, that my fate, as your 
champion, would have been other than this, if I had References 
been caught by the Tyrants ? I should have been cides to 
destroyed by them, as they destroyed many others, history of 
for having clone no wrong to Athens." l 

1 De Myst. §§ 99-102, 


The love of Anclocides for narrative, wherever it 
can be introduced, is strikingly seen in his mode of 
handling his legal argument in the speech On the 
Mysteries. Instead of simply citing and interpret- 
ing the enactments upon which he relies, he reviews 
in order the events which led to the enactments being 
made. 1 The same tendency appears in his habit of 
drawing illustrations from the early history of Attica. 
These references are in many points loose and con- 
fused. 2 Andocides, however, is hardly a worse 
offender in this respect than (for instance) Aeschines ; 3 
and has more excuse. In the time of Andocides 
written history was a comparatively new invention, 
and most men knew the events even of their grand- 
fathers' days only from hearsay. Nor does the 
apparent inaccuracy of Andocides in regard to earlier 
history affect his authority as a witness for events 
with which he was contemporary. The value of his 
testimony for the years 415-390 is unquestioned. 
Love of Andocides sometimes shows his taste for narrative 

Andocides . . -, n i • i i , • tt 

for gossip, in a special form which deserves notice. He is a 
master of shrewd and telling gossip. He diverges 
from the main thread of his argument into anecdotes 
which will amuse his hearers, and either directly 
damage the adversary, or at least strike some chord 
favourable to himself. A part of the speech On the 
Mysteries is, in fact, made up of such stories (§§ 110- 

1 Be My st. §§ 70-91. § 172, where Miltiades is spoken 

2 Remarks on the historical re- of as alive after Salamis : and ib. 
ferences in Be Myst. §§ 106-108, and § 174, where the 1000 talents set 
in Be Pace, §§ 3-7, will be found in apart in 431 B.C. against special need 
ch. vi., in connexion with these (Time. n. 24) are represented as 
speeches respectively. the total sum then in the Athenian 

3 See e.g. Aeschin. Be Falsa Legat. treasury. 


136). Speaking, for instance, of the son of his 
accuser Callias, he reminds the judges that there was 
once a certain Hipponicus at Athens whose house 
was haunted by an avenging spirit — so said the 
children and the women : and the saying came true, 
for the man s son proved a very demon to him. Well, 
the house of Callias is haunted by a fiend of the same 
kind (§§ 130-131). In this trait Andocides resembles 
one, and one only, of the other Greek orators : it is 
precisely the impudent, unscrupulous cleverness of 
Aeschines. There is the same shrewd perception of 
what will raise a laugh or a sneer ; the same adroit- 
ness, unchecked by self-respect, in making a point of 
this kind whenever the opportunity offers ; the same 
command of coarse but telling abuse ; the same ability 
and resolution to follow the workings, and profit by 
the prejudices, of low minds. Akin to this taste for p r0 neness 
gossip is a certain proneness to sink into low comedy. C idestoiow 
There is a fragment of Andocides, describing the come y * 
influx of country -people into Athens in 431 B.C., 
which will illustrate this. It has exactly the tone 
of the Acharnians : — 

" Never again may we see the colliers coming in 
from the hills to the town — the sheep and oxen and 
the waggons — the poor women and okl men — the 
labourers arming themselves ! Never more may we 
eat wild greens and chervil ! " l 

In passing judgment upon Andocides, it must be Summary. 

1 fiTj yap Uoifxev irore irdXtp ck tup fitjde ay pea \&x ava KaL ffudpdiKas 'in 

opeup rotis apQpaKevras iJKOPras Kal cpdyoLfiep. Quoted by Suidas, p. 

Tvpofiara Kal /3ou<? Kal ras a/md^as els to 3327 B, from a scholium on Ar. Ach- 

ao-Tv, Kal ytivaia Kal Trpeapvrepovs am. 477 : Sauppe, Fragm. Oratt. Gr. 

apdpas Kal ipydras e£o7r\i£o / ue*'ous- p. 166 : Blass, Andoc. (Teubner) p. 97. 

106 THE ATTIC ORATORS chap, v 

allowed that he possesses neither literary merit nor 
properly oratorical merit which can entitle him to 
rank with the greatest masters of Greek rhetorical 
prose. His language has neither splendour nor a 
refined simplicity ; he is not remarkably acute in 
argument ; and, compared with his contemporaries, 
he is singularly without precision in the arrangement 
of his ideas. His extant works present no passage 
conceived in the highest strain of eloquence ; he 
never rises to an impassioned earnestness. On the 
other hand, his naturalness, though not charming, is 
genuine ; he has no mannerisms or affectations ; and 
his speeches have a certain impetus, a certain con- 
fident vigour, which assure readers that they must 
have been still more effective for hearers. The chief 
value of Andocides is historical. But he has also 
real literary value of a certain kind : he excels in 
graphic description. A few of those pictures into 
which he has put all the force of a quick mind — the 
picture of Athens panic-stricken by the sacrilege 1 — 
the scene of miserable perplexity in the prison 2 — the 
patriotic citizen arraigned before the Thirty Tyrants 3 — 
have a vividness which no artist could easily surpass, 
combined with a freshness which a better artist might 
possibly have lost, 4 

1 Be My st. §§ 43-45. et lacertos : veliemens imprimis in 
' 2 lb. §§ 48-51. reprehendendo, in defendendo se 
a J]) m §§ 70-91. gravis, ad misericordiam erga se 
4 Sluiter's judgment (Lectiones An- movendam odiumque in adversaries 
docideae, p. 3) does not show much excitandum plane compositus, in pro- 
discrimination :— "At equidem, quan- ponendis diiudkandisque argumentis 
quam Andocidi orationem non tribu- subtilis et acutus, dictione purus et 
am ratione et arte excultam et poli- elcgans, plenus Attici saporis : ut iure 
tarn : subtilitatem tamen, impetum a Grammaticis in numerum sit 
atque (/mt-^afcm illius sum admiratus. relatus et inter decern collocatus 
Arte Lysiae cedit, nervos plures habet principes." 




Four speeches ascribed to Andocicles are extant, 
bearing the titles "On the Mysteries'': "On his 
Return " : " On the Peace with the Lacedaemonians " : 
" Against Alcibiades." The speech On the Mysteries, 
as the chief extant work of its author, stands first in 
the manuscripts and the editions. But the second 
oration relates to an earlier passage in the life of 
Andocicles, and may conveniently be considered first. 

The speech of Andocides " On his Return " affords speech 
no further internal evidence of its own date than Return/ 
that it was spoken later than 411 and earlier than 
405 B.C. 1 Blass places it in 409." But a circum- 
stance which he has not noticed seems to us to make 
it almost certain that the speech cannot have been 
delivered later than the summer of 410. Andocides 
lays stress upon the service which he has rendered 
to Athens by securing a supply of corn from Cyprus. 

1 Later than 411 — as being a con- raeus is open to corn-ships, § 21. — 

siderable time after the fall of the The notice in [Lys.] in Andoc. § 29 

Four Hundred in June 411, §§ 13- gives no help towards fixing the 

16, etc. : and obviously earlier than date. 

Aegospotami — since (e.g.) the Pei- 2 Attisch. Berecls. p. 278. 


There had been a disappointment about this supply ; 
but he states that he has overcome the difficulty, — 
that fourteen corn-ships will be in the Peiraeus almost 
immediately, and that others are to follow. 1 Now 
the event which had made this supply a matter of 
anxiety to Athens was the stoppage of the usual 
importations from the south coast of the Euxine. 
In 411 she had lost the command of the Bosphorus 
by the revolt of Chalcedon, and the command of the 
Hellespont by the revolt of Abydus. 2 But, in 410, 
the battle of Cyzicus was followed by the re-establish- 
ment of Athenian power in the Propontis and in its 
adjacent straits. The corn-trade of the Euxine once 
more flowed towards Athens ; and, in the autumn of 
410, Agis, from his station at Deceleia, saw with 
despair the multitude of corn-ships which were run- 
ning into the Peiraeus. 3 The benefit, therefore, for 
which Andocides claims so much credit, would have 
been no great benefit, had it been conferred later 
than the middle of the year 410. The Four Hundred 
were deposed about the middle of June 411 ; and it 
would have been natural that Andocides should have 
endeavoured to return at least in the course of the 
following year. 

As a speech on a private matter before the public 
assembly, this oration belongs to the same class as 
that which Demosthenes is said to have written for 
Diphilus in support of his claim to be rewarded by 

1 §§ 20-21. eis Heipcua Karadeovra ovdeu Sfe'Kos 

t ^ „ ,„ ecbr) elvau rovs uer' clvtov iro\bv t}8ti 

- See Grote, vm. pp. 1/1 ft. , , kn . „ , , 

1 v Xpovov AOrjvcuovs eipyetv ttjs yrjs, ei fx-q 

:J Xen. Ilellen. t. i. 35, ^KyLS 5e in tis gxw qi ^cd oBev 6 Kara 6d\aTTav 

ttjs &€K€\das Idcbu 7r\o?a ttoWcl gitov (tItos (pocra. 


the State. 1 Andocides is charged, in the speech of 
the pseudo-Lysias, with having gained admittance to 
the ecclesia by bribing its presidents. 2 It is unneces- 
sary to believe this story. But the emphasis which 
he himself lays on the valuable information which he 
had previously given to the Senate 3 suggests that, 
without some such recommendation, he would have 
found it difficult to obtain a hearing from the people. 
The object of the speech is to procure the removal 
of certain disabilities under which he was alleged to 
lie. His disclosures in 415 were made under a 
guarantee of immunity from all consequences. But 
the decree of Isotimides, passed soon afterwards, 
excluded from the market-place and from temples all 
" who had committed impiety and who had confessed 
it ; " and his enemies maintained that this decree 
applied to him. 

In the proem he points out the malice or stupidity of Analysis 
the men who persist in rejecting the good offices which he 
is anxious to render to Athens ; and refers to the importance 
of the communications which he has made in confidence to 
the Senate (§§ 1-4). His so-called crimes — committed in 

1 That is to say, it is a d-rj/uTiyopia, els ttjv eavrov ttoKlv tols fiev irpvrd- 
but not properly a deliberative speech ; veaiv edcoKe xPVf J - ara '<- va clvtov irpoa- 
not a true crvn(3ov\evTiKos \6yos. aydyoiev evOdde, v/xeh 5' avrbv e^rjKd- 
Dionysius mentions {Be Beinarcho, (rare iK ttjs iroXeojs. 

c. 11) a drjfjirjyopLKbs \6yos written for 3 Andoc. Be Pied. § 19, ifiol toivvv 

Diphilus, in which the latter urged rd ^ev tj8t] -rreirpayixeva ux^bv n 

before the ecclesia his own claim diravres av eldeirjre, rd de [xeWovrd 

to certain public honours (dcopeal). re kcu 7J8t) irparrofxeva avbpes b^Gtv 

Dionysius thinks that this must irevraKbaoL iv diropprjTU) Ivaaiv, v, 

have been written by Demosthenes, (3ov\r). The words avdpes Trei>raKo- 

not by Deinarchus. Cf. Sauppe, <noi deserve notice as a clever rhetori- 

Fragm. Oratt. Gr. p. 251. cal touch : they imply a congratula- 

2 [Lys.] in Andoc. § 29, Kara- tion on the recent abolition of the 
wXetfo-cw de iiceWev devpo els d^oKparlav Senate of Four Hundred. 


" youth " and " folly " — are, he contends, his misfortunes. 
For the disclosures which he was driven to make five years 
before he deserves pity — nay, gratitude — rather than hatred 
(§§ 5-9). 

He then speaks of his life in exile ; of his services to 
the army at Samos in 411 ; of his return to Athens in 
the time of the Four Hundred ; and of his imprisonment 
at the instance of Peisander, who denounced him as the 
friend of the democracy (§§ 10—16). Statesmen and gene- 
rals serve the State at the State's expense ; he has served 
it at his own charge. Nor has the end of these services 
been yet seen. The people will be soon in possession of the 
secrets which he has imparted to the Senate ; and will soon 
see supplies of corn, procured by his intercession, enter the 
Peiraeus (§§ 17-21). In return for so much, he asks but 
one small boon — the observance of the promise of impunity 
under which he originally laid his information, but which 
was afterwards withdrawn through the influence of his 
enemies (§§ 22-23). 

The peroration opens with a singular argument. When 
a man makes a mistake, it is not his body's fault : the 
blame rests with his mind. But he, since he made his 
mistake, has got a new mind. All that remains, therefore, 
of the old Andocides is his unoffending body (§ 24). As 
he was condemned on account of his former deeds, he ought 
now to be welcomed for his recent deeds. His family has 
ever been patriotic ; his great-grandfather fought against 
the Peisistratidae ; he, too, is a friend of the people. The 
people, he well knows, are not to blame for the breach of 
faith with him ; they were persuaded to it by the same 
advisers who persuaded them to tolerate an oligarchy. They 
have repented of the oligarchy ; let them repent also of the 
unjust sentence (§§ 25—28). 

Remark. There is a striking contrast between this defence 


before the ecclesia and that which Anclocides made on 

the same charges, some eleven years later, before a 

law-court. There he flatly denies that he is in any 

degree guilty ; he turns upon his adversaries with 

invective and ridicule ; he carries the whole matter 

with a high hand, speaking in a thoroughly confident 

tone, and giving free play to his lively powers of 

narration. Here it is quite otherwise. He speaks 

with humility and remorse of the " folly " — the 

" madness " of his youth ; he complains feelingly of 

the persecution which he has suffered ; he implores, 

in return for constant devotion to the interests of 

Athens, just one favour — a little favour, which will 

give his countrymen no trouble, but which will be 

to him a great joy. In 399 he is defiant; in 410 

he is almost abject. In 410 the traces of guilt to 

which his enemies pointed w^ere still fresh. Before 

his next speech was spoken, they had been dimmed, 

not by lapse of time only, but by that great wave 

of trouble which swept over Athens in 405, and 

which, left all older memories faint in comparison with 

the memory of the Thirty Tyrants. Andocides the 

wealthy choregus, the president of the sacred mission, 

the steward of the sacred treasure, supported on his 

trial by popular politicians and by advocates chosen 

from his tribe, was a different person from the 

anxious suitor who, in the speech On his Return, 

implored, but could not obtain tolerance. 

In the style of the speech there is little to remark 
except that its difference from that of the speech On 
the Mysteries exactly corresponds with the difference 
of tone. There the orator is diffuse, careless, lively ; 


here he is more compact — for he dared not treat a 
hostile assembly to long stories — more artificial — and 
decidedly more dull. Once only does the dramatic 
force of his natural style flash out — where he 
describes his appearance before the Council of the 
Four Hundred. " Some of the Four Hundred learned 
that I had arrived ; sought me at once ; seized me ; 
and brought me before the Council. In an instant 
Peisander was at my side : — ' Senators, I impeach 
this man for bringing corn and oar-spars to the 
enemy 7 " (§ 14). 
Speech The events with which the speech On the Mysteries 

Mysteries, is connected have been related in the life of Andocides. 
After his return to Athens (probably early in 402 
B.C.), under favour of the general amnesty which 
followed the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, he had 
spent three years in the discharge of various public 
offices. At length, in 399 B.C., his enemies renewed 
their attack. During the festival of the Great 
Mysteries, which Andocides attended, in the autumn 
of that year, Cephisius laid an information against 
him before the Archon Basileus. 
Mode of Some obscurity hangs over the form of the ac- 

cedure. 10 " cusation ; we will give the account of it which appears 
most probable. When, in 415 B.C., Andocides made 
his disclosures, he did so on the guarantee of impunity 
(dSeta) which a special decree of the ecclesia had given 
to all who should inform. Subsequently, however, 
Isotimides proposed and carried a decree that all ■who 
had committed impiety and had confessed it should 
be excluded from the market-place and from the 
temples. The enemies of Andocides maintained that 


lie came under this decree. This was the immediate 
cause of his quitting Athens in 415. In 410 he 
was unsuccessful in applying to have the sentence of 
disfranchisement cancelled. On his return in 402, 
however, nothing had been said at first about his 

His accusers now contended that he had broken 
the decree of Isotimides by attending the Mysteries 
and entering the Eleusinian Temple. To attend the 
festival or enter the temple unlawfully would, of 
course, be an impiety. The information which they 
laid against him charged him, therefore, on this 
ground, with impiety. It was an evBet^ ao-eftec'ds. 
But, in order to prove it, it was necessary to show 
that he came under the decree of Isotimides. It was 
necessary to show that he had committed impiety, 
as well as given information, in 415 B.C. 

His defence is therefore directed to showing, in 
the first place, that he had not committed impiety 
at that time either by profaning the Mysteries or 
by mutilating the Hermae. The speech takes its 
ordinary title from the fact that the Mysteries form 
one of its prominent topics. But a more general 
title would have better described the range of its 
contents. It might have been more fitly called a 
Defence on a Charge of Impiety. 

This view of the matter explains some difficulties. 
Andocides says (de Myst. § 71), " Cephisius has 
informed against me according to the existing law, 
but bases his accusation on the decree of Isotimides.'* 
That is, Cephisius laid against Andocides an ordinary 
evhei^is ao-e/3etW But the charge of aaefteia rested 



on the assumption that he had broken the decree 
of Isotimides. He was not directly charged either 
with profaning the Mysteries or with mutilating 
the Hermae ; his guilt in one or both of these 
matters was assumed. He proceeds to prove that 
this assumption is groundless ; and that, therefore, 
the decree does not apply to him. 1 

The charge, like all connected with religion, was 
brought into court by the Archon Basileus. Since 
details connected with the Mysteries might be put 
in evidence, the judges were chosen exclusively from 
the initiated of the higher grade." Cephisius, the 
chief accuser, 3 was assisted by Meletus, who had 
been implicated in the murder of Leon under the 
Thirty, 4 and by Epichares, who had been a member of 
their government. 5 On the same side were Callias 6 
and Agyrrhius/ each of whom had a private quarrel 
with the accused. Andocides was supported by 
Anytus and Cephalus, both politicians of mark, and 
both popular for the part which they had taken 
in the restoration of the democracy. 8 Advocates 

1 Blass says: " Kephisios, der als evdei&s aaefieias. Thus alone can 
Hauptklager ancli die Hauptrede we understand why the cause was 
hielt, hatte nach Andokides seine brought into court by the Archon 
Anklage gegriindet auf das Psephisma Basileus ; and why death was the 
des Isotimides." {Att. Bereds. p. penalty. (Cf. de Myst. § 146 : [Lys.] 
300.) This statement, though sub- in Andoc. § 55.) 
stantially true, is not calculated to 
convey a clear idea of the form in 
which the accusation was preferred. 
Andocides was not simply accused of 
usurping certain rights which the 
decree of Isotimides had taken from 
him. That would have been an 
ZudeiiJLs drifjiias. He was accused s § 150. For Anytus, see Xen. 

specifically of impiety — the result of Hellen. u. 3 §§ 42, 44 : for Cephalus, 
usurping such rights : it was an Demosth. de Cor. § 219. 

2 § 29 06 /ue/xvyj/mevoL : 
/cat iojpoiKare roiv deoiv 

: § 


31 fJL€ju,ijT]cr6e 

8 § 71. 



5 §95. 

6 §§ no- 






chosen for him by his tribesmen were also in court. 
It is remarkable if, as there is reason to believe, two 
men engaged on different sides in this trial were, in 
the same year, united in preferring a more famous 
charge of impiety. Anytus undoubtedly, Meletus 1 
probably, was the accuser of Socrates. 

The speech On the Mysteries falls into three 
main divisions. In the first, Andocides shows his 
innocence in regard to the events of 415 B.C. In the 
second he shows that, in any case, the decree of 
Isotimides is now obsolete. In the third he deals 
with a number of minor topics. 

I. §§ 1-69 

1. {Proem.) §§ 1-7. Andocides dwells on the rancour Analysis, 
of his enemies ; insists on the fact of his having remained 

to stand his trial — instead of withdrawing to his property 
in Cyprus — as a proof of a good conscience ; and appeals to 
the judges. 2 

2. §§ 8—10. He is perplexed as to what topic of his 
defence he shall first approach. After a fresh appeal to 

1 Meletus is mentioned in §§ 12 f., 2-5. Spengel and Blass believe that 
35, 63, 94. He was a partisan of both Andocides and Lysias used a 
the Thirty (§ 94), and is clearly proem written by some third person ; 
identical with the Meletus who went Andocides interpolating in it some 
to Sparta as one of the envoys of the matter of his own. It is true that 
Town Party in 403 to discuss the the transition from § 5 to § 6 in the 
terms of peace between the Town speech of Andocides is harsh, as if a 
and the Peiraeus (Xen. Hellen. 11. 4 patch had been made ; but the transi- 
§ 36). All this agrees with what is tion from § 3 to § 4 is hardly less 
known about the age of the Meletus harsh, as Blass himself observes ; 
who accused Socrates. See the article indeed he suggests that a second 
by Mr. Philip Smith in the Diet, of borrowed proem may have been used 
Greek and Roman Biography. there ; but this is improbable. I 

2 Parts of this proem, viz. § 1 to should prefer to suppose that the 
the words iroWovs Xoyovs iroieiadcu, whole proem is the work of Ando- 
and §§ 6, 7 cuVoO/«u o$v — d/coi^re cides himself, and that Lysias (whose 
aTTokoyovfievov occur, slightly varied, speech belongs to 387 B.C.) abridged 
in Lysias de bonis Aristoplianis, §§ it. 


the judges he resolves to begin with the facts relating to 
the Mysteries. 

3. §§ 11-33. The Mysteries Case, He neither pro- 
faned them himself, nor informed against others as having 
profaned them. Four persons, on four distinct occasions, 
did, in fact, so inform : viz. — (i) Pythonicus, who produced 
the slave Andromachus, § 11: (ii) Teucrus, § 15: (iii) 
Agariste, § 16 : (iv) Lydus, § 17. Lydus implicated Leogoras 
the father of Andocides. Leogoras, however, not only 
cleared himself, but got a verdict in an action which he 
brought against the senator Speusippus, §§ 17, 18. (This 
occasions a parenthesis, in which Andocides defends himself 
against the imputation of having denounced his father and 
relations: §§ 19—24.) The largest reward for information 
(fjLrjvvrpa) was adjudged to Andromachus ; the second, to 
Teucrus: §§ 27, 28. Andocides calls upon the judges to 
recognise his innocence as regards the Mysteries : $ 

4. §§ 34-69. The Hermae Case. In this matter the 
chief informants were (i) Teucrus: §§ 34-35 : (ii) Dioclei- 
des, whose allegations caused a general panic: §§ 36-46: 
(iii) Andocides himself. The circumstances, motives and 
results of his disclosure are stated at length : §§ 47-69. 

II. §§ 70-91 

It is argued that the decree of Isotimides is now void, 
because it has been cancelled by subsequent decrees, laws 
and oaths, §§ 70-72. These are next enumerated, as 

I ^ 73-79. During the siege of Athens by the 
Lacedaemonians in 405 B.C. the decree of Patrocleides was 
passed, reinstating all the disfranchised. 

2. § 80. After the truce with Sparta in 404, when the 
Thirty Tyrants were established, all exiles received free per- 
mission to return. 


3. § 81. After the expulsion of the Thirty in 403 a 
general amnesty was proclaimed. 

4. §§ 82-89. At the same time, in accordance with the 
decree of Tisamenus, a revision of the laws was ordered. 
This revision having been completed, four new general laws 
(vo/jloc) were passed : — viz. (i) That no " unwritten " law 
should have force : (ii) That no decree (yfrijfaafia) of ecclesia 
or senate should overrule a law (v6/jlos) : (hi) That no law 
should he made against an individual (eV avSpt, § 87) : (iv) 
That decisions of judges or arbiters, pronounced under the 
former democracy, should remain valid ; but that, in future, 
all decisions should be based on the code as revised in the 
archonship of Eucleides in 403 B.C. [This is expressed by 
the phrase ^prjcrdat vo/jlols air JLv/ckelSov ap^ovTos, § 8 / .] 

5. §§ 90, 91. Returning to the subject of § 81, Ando- 
cides recalls the terms of the oath of amnesty taken in 
403 B.C. He then quotes the official oath of Senators and 
the official oath of Judges. 

III. §§ 92-150 (end). 

1. gg 92-105. He shows that, if the amnesty is to be 
violated, in his case, it may be violated to the cost of others 
also. The accusers, Cephisius, Meletus, and Epichares, as 
well as others, would, in various ways, be liable to punish- 

2. ^ 106-109. He illustrates the good effect of general 
amnesties by two examples from the history of Athens : — 
(i) the moderation shown after the expulsion of the Peisi- 
stratidae ; (ii) an amnesty in the time of the Persian Wars. 

3. §§ 110-136. He answers a charge made against him 
by'Callias. Callias asserted that Andocides, terrified by the 
accusation hanging over him, had laid a suppliant's bough 
(iKerripla) on the altar in the temple at Eleusis during the 
festival of the Great Mysteries. To take sanctuary, or to 
place a symbol of supplication, in that temple at that season, 


was a capital offence (as implying the approach of guilt to 
the temple at a holy season). Andocides explains the motive 
of this false charge. Callias was seeking for his son an 
heiress whose hand was claimed by Andocides (§§ 110-123). 
This leads to a digression about a scandal connected with 
the birth of this son (§§ 124-131). He then attacks the 
abettors of Callias in this slander — especially Agyrrhius, a 
fraudulent tax-farmer who had a grudge against Andocides 
(§§ 132-136). 

4. §§ 137-139. He ridicules the assertion made by 
the accuser, that the gods must have preserved so great a 
traveller from the dangers of the sea because they reserved 
him for the hemlock. 

5. §§ 140-150. Peroration, on three topics chiefly: — 
(i) the credit which Athens has gained by her policy of 
amnesties — credit which the judges are bound to sustain : 
(ii) the public services of the ancestors of Andocides : (iii) 
his own opportunities for usefulness to the State hereafter, 
if he is acquitted. 

Andocides was acquitted. Before speaking of the 
method and style of his speech, it is due to its great 
historical interest to notice some of the disputed 
statements of fact which it contains. 
Historical 1. Does the speech represent that account of his 

the Speech, own conduct which Andocides gave in 415 when he 
made his disclosures before the Council of Four Hun- 
dred ? Next — had he, as a matter of fact, taken part 
in the mutilation of the Hermae ? These two ques- 
tions have been shortly discussed in Chapter iv. 1 
Some reasons are there suggested for believing (1) 
that, in 415, Andocides had criminated himself as 
well as others : (2) that he was, in fact, innocent. 

] p. 75. 


2. In § 11 Pythonicus, who brought forward the 
evidence of the slave Andromachus, is named as the 
first denouncer of Alcibiades. " Some resident-aliens 
and slaves in attendance on their masters " (a/coXovOcov) 
are said by Thucydides (vi. 28) to have been the first 
accusers ; and Plutarch adds that these were brought 
forward by Androcles. Androcles is mentioned by 
Andocides only in § 27, as claiming the reward 
(fjbrjWTpa) from the Senate. In order to reconcile 
Andocides with Thucydides, it must be supposed 
either (1) that the " resident-aliens and slaves" of 
Thucydides (vi. 28) were the witnesses of Pythonicus, 
and not, as Plutarch states (Alcib. 19), of Androcles : 
or (2) that they were the witnesses, some of Python- 
icus, some of Androcles ; and that those brought 
forward by Androcles did not criminate Alcibiades, 
although Androcles afterwards found witnesses wdio 
did so. The former supposition, which makes Plu- 
tarch inaccurate, seems the most likely. 

3, In § 13 it is stated that, on Pythonicus making 
his accusations, Polystratus was at once arrested and 
executed, and that the other accused persons fled. 
It is certain, as Grote 1 observes, that Alcibiades was 
accused, but neither fled nor was brought to trial ; 
and it would seem more probable, therefore, that the 
charge was dropped, for the time, in reference to the 
others also. On this point, however, it does not seem 
necessary to assume inaccuracy in Andocides. The 
position of Alcibiades, as a commander of the expedi- 
tion on which the hopes of the people were set and 
which was about to sail, was wholly exceptional. 

1 Hist. Gr. 111. p. 243. 


The evidence against him may also have been of a 
different nature. 

4. In § 13 there is an oversight. Among those 
denounced by Pythonicus was Panaetius. And it is 
said that all persons so denounced — except Polystratus, 
who was put to death — fled. But in § 68 Panaetius 
appears as leaving Athens in consequence of the later 
denunciation of Andocides. As the list in § 13 con- 
tains ten names in all, the speaker might easily have 
made a mistake about one of the number. Or the 
evidence against Panaetius — who is named last of the 
ten — may have been so weak that he was acquitted 
upon this first charge. 

5. In § 34 it is said that some of the persons 
accused by Teucrus were put to death. To this Mr. 
Grote l opposes the fact that Thucydides (vi. 60) 
names as having suffered death only some of those 
who were denounced by Andocides. It seems unsafe, 
however, to conclude that the orator has made a 
wrong statement. The language of Thuc. vi. 53, 
PvWaiiftavovres KareZow, hardly warrants the inference 
that imprisonment was the utmost rigour used in other 
cases. The statement of Andocides in § 34 is inci- 
dentally confirmed by the words which he ascribes to 
Charmides in § 49. 

6. In §38 Andocides quotes, without comment, 
the statement of Diocleides that he had seen the faces 
of some of the conspirators by the light of a full moon. 
Now Plutarch says that one of the informers (he does 
not give the name), being asked how he had recog- 
nised the faces of the mutilators, answered, " by the 

1 Hist. Or. vi r. 266, 


light of the moon " ; and was thus convicted of false- 
hood, it having been new moon on the night in ques- 
tion. 1 Diodorus (xtii. 2) tells the same story, without 
mentioning any name ; but his account does not 
apply to Diocleides. Mr. Grote is unquestionably 
right in treating the new-moon story as a later fiction. 2 
Andocides would not have failed to notice so fatal a 
slip on the part of Diocleides ; nor is it likely that 
the informer would have made it. 

7. In § 17 the action brought by Leogoras against 
Speusippus is mentioned directly after the evidence 
of Lydus. But it should be observed that it is 
mentioned parenthetically ; and that the indefinite 
fcairetra does not fix its date at all. Leogoras was in 
the prison with his son (§ 50) ; and the action was 
doubtless not brought until after the disclosures of 

8. In § 45 the panic, during which the citizens 
kept watch under arms through the night, is placed 
in immediate connection with the informations of 
Diocleides, who caused this panic by representing 
the plot as widely spread. It is said, also, that the 
Boeotians took advantage of the alarm at Athens 
to march to the frontier. Now Thucydides (vi. 60) 
states that, during one night an armed body of 
citizens garrisoned the Theseion ; but he puts this 
after the disclosures of Andocides, and connects it 
with the appearance of a Spartan force at the isthmus. 
Bishop Thirl wall justly remarks that, unless there were 

1 Plut. Ale. c. 20, efs 5' avrCov rod 7ravr6s, ewqs /cat i>eas ova-qs ore 

ipcoTibjULevos 07rws tcl TrpocTcoira rCov ravr edparo. 
epfJLOK07riduv yvcopicreie, /ecu airoKpiva- 2 Hist. Gr. VH. p. 271. 

ixevos otl Trpbs ttjv aeXrjvrjv, ecrcpakr) 


two or more occasions on which the citizens kept armed 
watch, Andocides, who goes into minute detail, is more 
likely than Thucydides to be right about the time of it. 1 
9. In § 106 the expulsion from Athens of the 
tyrants — that is Hippias and his adherents — is 
described as following upon a battle fought eVl Ua\- 
Xr}vUp, which seems to mean " at the Pallenion," the 
temple of Athena Pallenis at Pallene, about 10 miles 
e.n.e. of Athens. 2 Now it was near this temple that 
Peisistratus, on his third return, won the victory 
which led to the final establishment of his tyranny, 
probably in 545 B.C. 3 But no battle at the same 
spot, or anywhere near it, is mentioned by any 
other authority in connexion with the expulsion of 
the Peisistratidae, According to Herodotus, the 
Lacedaemonians sent, in 510, an expedition under 
Cleomenes. Cleomenes, on entering Attica from 
the isthmus, met and routed the Thessalian cavalry 
of Hippias ; advanced to Athens ; and besieged the 
Peisistratidae, who presently capitulated. 4 Herodotus 
and Andocides can be reconciled only by supposing 
that the account of Herodotus is incomplete. 5 It 

1 Hist. Gr. ill. p. 499 (appendix calls llaW-qvLdos 'AOrjvalrjs ipbv. 

in. to ch. xxv.). 3 This is the date fixed on by 

2 Professor Rawlinson, in the Curtius {Hist. Gr. Vol. i. p. 359 tr. 
Journal of Philology, Vol. I. No. 2, Ward). Clinton (F. H. n. p. 202) 
p. 25, questions whether the IlaX- thinks 537 more probable. 

\r\viov of Andocides means the temple 4 Her. v. 64. 

of Athena at Pallene. The proper 5 Professor Rawlinson thinks that 

name of that temple was, he thinks, there was a second battle (after that 

"the Pallenis." It appears to me, won by Cleomenes on entering 

as I have endeavoured to show Attica), in which the Alcmaeonidae 

[Journ. Philol. Vol. it. No. 3, p. 48), and the other exiles fought on the 

that YlaXk-nvis is always the epithet Spartan side: and this battle, he 

of the goddess, not the name of the suggests, may have been fought near 

temple. I believe UaWfy tov to be Pallene [Journ. Phil. I. 2. pp. 25 

identical with what Herodotus (i. 62) ff.). 



seems more probable, however, that Andocides has 
confused the scene of a battle won by Peisistratus 
with the scene of a battle lost by the Peisistratidae. 1 

10. In § 107 it is said that when, later, the 
Persian king made an expedition against Greece, the 
Athenians recalled those who had been banished, and 
reinstated those who had been disfranchised, when 
the tyrants were expelled. No such amnesty is re- 
corded in connexion with the first Persian invasion in 
490 ; but Plutarch mentions such a measure as havin 
been passed shortly before the battle of Salamis in 
480. 2 Now the Persian invasion in 490 was under- 
taken for the purpose of restoring Hippias ; and the 
invasion in 480 was undertaken partly at the instance 
of his family. Men (or their descendants) who had 
been banished or disfranchised in 510 would certainly 
not have been restored to Athenian citizenship in 490 
or 480. Andocides seems, then, to have remembered 
vaguely that an act of amnesty was passed at Athens 
on some occasion during the Persian wars ; to have 
placed this act in 490 instead of 480; and to have 
represented it as passed in favour of the very persons 
who would probably have been excluded from it. 

11. In § 107 it is said of the Athenians: — 
' 'They resolved to meet the barbarians at Marathon. 
. . . They fought and conquered ; they freed Greece 
and saved their country. And having done so great 

a deed, they thought it not meet to bear malice 

1 The view that the battle de- worth, Athens and Attica, p. 198 

scribed by Andocides as fought iirl note: Thirl wall, Hist. Gr. n. p. 80 

lla\\r)i'icp is identical with that men- note: Grote, Hist. Gr. iv. p. 165 

tioned in Herod, v. 64 is held by note. 

Sluiter, Led. Andoe. p. 6: Words- - Plut. Them. c. 11. 


against any one for the past. Therefore, although 
through these things they entered upon their city 
desolate, their temples in ashes, their walls and houses 
in ruins, yet by concord they achieved the empire of 
Greece," etc. From this passage Valckenar, 1 Sluiter 
and Grote infer that Andocides has transferred the 
burning of Athens by Xerxes in 480 to the first 
invasion in 490. This is hardly a necessary inference. 
Andocides is speaking of the struggle with Persia — 
extending from 490 to 479 — as a whole. He names 
Marathon : he does not name Salamis or Plataea, 
He merely says that, after the Athenians had "freed 
Greece," they came back to find their city in 
ruins. 2 
Arrange- It is impossible to read the speech On the 

meut and . 

style of Mysteries without feeling that, as a whole, it is 

the Speech. 

powerful in spite of some evident defects. The 
arrangement is best in what we have called the first 
division (§§ 1-69), which deals with two distinct 
groups of facts, those relating to the Mysteries case 
and those relating to the Hermae case. These facts 
are stated in an order which is, on the whole, clear 
and natural, though not free from the parentheses of 
which Andocides was so fond, and of which sections 
19-24 form an example. Less praise is due to the 
second part of the speech (§§ 70-91), devoted to the 
various enactments which had made the decree of 

1 See Valckenar' s note, quoted and Xerxis gesta. Hie urbem ineeiidio 

endorsed by Sluiter, Led. Andoc. p, delevit, non ille. Nihil magis est 

48, and by Grote, 1 v. p. 165 n. : — manifestum quani diversa ab oratoro 

"Confundere videtur Andocides eonfundi." 

diversissima : Persica sub Miltiade - See the Journal of Philology, 

et Dario et victoriam Marathoniam, Vol. i. No. 1, p. 165, for a discussion 

quaeque evenere sub Themistocle, of this passage. 


Isotimides obsolete. It is at once full and obscure, 
giving needless, and withholding necessary, details. 
The third part (§§ 92-end) is a mere string of topics, 
unconnected with each other, and but slightly con- 
nected with the case. This confused appendix to the 
real defence is, however, significant. It shows the 
anxiety of Andocides to make the judges understand 
the rancorous personal feeling of his enemies ; an 
anxiety natural in a man who for sixteen years had 
been pursued by unproved accusations. The passages 
about Callias and Agyrrhius probably had a stronger 
effect upon the court than any conventional appeal to 
compassion would have produced. 

As regards style, the language of the speech is 
thoroughly unaffected and easy, plain without studied 
avoidance of ornament, and rising at the right places 
— as when he speaks of the old victories of freedom 
(§§ 106-109), and in the peroration (§§ 140-150). 
But the great merit of the composition is its pictur- 
esqueness, its variety and life. The scene in the 
prison (§§ 48-53) and the description of the panic at 
Athens (§§ 43-45) are perhaps the best passages in 
this respect. If Andocides had not many rhetorical 
accomplishments, he certainly had perception of 
character, and the knack of describing it. Diocleides 
bargaining with Eupheinus (§ 40) — Charmides ex- 
horting Andocides to save the prisoners (§§ 49, 50) 
— Peisander urging that Mantitheus and Aphepsion 
should be put on the rack (§ 43) — are well given in a 
few vivid touches. speech on 

The speech On the reace with the Lacedae- with tiie 
monians belongs, as has been noticed in a former momans. 


chapter/ to the year 390. Athens, Thebes, Corinth 
and Argos had then been four years at war with 
Sparta. Andocides had just returned from an 
embassy to Sparta with a view to peace. The terms 
proposed by the Lacedaemonians were, as regarded 
Athens, permission to retain her walls and ships, 
and the restoration of Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros. 
The orator, speaking in debate in the ecclesia, urges 
that these terms should be accepted. 

Analysis. The opponents of peace contend that peace with 

Lacedaemon is fraught with danger to the democracy 
(§§ 1-2). He meets this objection by instancing a number 
of cases in which peace with Sparta, so far from injuring 
the Athenian democracy, was productive of the greatest 
advantage to it. He cites (1) a peace with Sparta nego- 
tiated by Miltiades during a war in Euboea : §§ 3 -5. (2) 
The Thirty Years' Truce, 445 B.C. : §§ 6-7. (3) The Peace 
of Nicias, 421 B.C. : §§ 8, 9. — The compulsory truce with 
Sparta in 404, followed by the establishment of the Thirty 
Tyrants, was not, properly speaking, a peace at all ; and is 
therefore no exception to the rule that peace with Sparta 
has always been found salutary (§§ 10-12). 

There is no good reason for continuing the war. The 
claims of Athens have now been recognised ; the Boeotians 
desire peace ; the hope of finally crushing Sparta is idle 
(§§ 13-16). Athens is the power which gains most by the 
peace now proposed (§§ 17-23). If Boeotia makes peace, 
Athens will be left with one weak ally, Corinth, and another 
who is a positive encumbrance — selfish Argos (§§ 24-27). 
Athens must not, here, prefer weak friends, as formerly she 
preferred Amorges to Xerxes II. ; Egesta to Syracuse ; Argos 
to Sparta (§§ 28-32). The speaker goes on to notice a 
variety of objections to the peace. Some say that walls 

1 Ch. iv. p. 82. 


and ships are not money, and wish to recover their pro- 
perty abroad [ra afyerep avrwv t% vire popias, § 36] which 
was lost when the Athenian empire fell. But such men 
ought to remember that walls and ships were just the means 
by which the empire was won in the first instance 
(§§ 33-39), 

In a peroration the assembly is reminded that the 
decision rests wholly with it ; Argive and Corinthian envoys 
have come urging war ; Spartan envoys, offering peace. 
The true plenipotentiaries are not the ambassadors, but 
those who vote in the ecclesia (§§ 40, 41). 1 

According to the author of the Argument, the Question of 
speech On the Peace was judged spurious by ticity. 
Dionysius - and Harpocration also doubted its 
authenticity. 3 Among modern critics, Taylor 4 and 
Markland 5 are the chief who have taken the same 
view ; but they have a majority of opinions against 
them. Probably the suspicions of Dionysius, like 
those of Taylor, arose mainly from the difficulties of 
the historical passage (§§ 3-6) ; and from the fact 
that this passage is found, slightly modified, in the 
speech of Aeschines On the Embassy. 

It is said in §§ 3-5 that, when the Athenians Historical 

*" . difficulties. 

'' had the war m Euboea — being then masters 01 
Megara, Troezen and Pegae — Miltiades, son of Cimon, 
who had been ostracised, was recalled, and was 
sent to treat for peace at Sparta. A peace was 

1 irpeffpevras odv irdvras vfids jjfieh 5 Ad Aeschin. Be Falsa Legat. p. 

oi 7rp^cr/3ets iroiovfJLev. 302. 

2 Auct. Argum. ad fin. 6 5e Aio 
uvctlos vodov elvai \e7et rbv \byov. 

6 Sluiter, Led. Andoc. c. x. p. 
205, and Valckenar quoted there : 
Ruhnken, Hist. CrU. Or. Grace. 
:; He quotes it thrice, but always ( 0p usc. Vol. 1. p. 325) ; Wesseler ad 
with the addition el yvfaios. Diod gic> xn c> 8 . an( i BlasSj AtL 

4 Lectiones Lysiacae, c. vi. (Vol. Bereds. p. 322, are among the de- 
11. p. 260, ed, Reiske). fenders of the speech as authentic. 


concluded between Athens and Sparta for fifty 
years ; J and was observed on both sides for thirteen 
years. During this peace the Peiraeus was fortified 
(478 B.C.), and the Northern Long Wall was built 
(457 B.C.). Now (1) the only recorded war of 
Athens in which Euboea was concerned, during the 
life of Miltiades, was circ. 509 B.C., when the Chal- 
ciclians w r ere defeated and their territory given to the 
first cleruchs. (2) Megara, Troezen and Pegae were 
not included in the Athenian alliance until Ions: after 
478 B.C. (3) Miltiades was never ostracised; having 
been sent to the Chersonese before the invention of 
ostracism by Cleisthenes. (4) No such peace as that 
spoken of is known; though in 491, an Athenian 
embassy went to Sparta with a different object — to 
denounce the medism of the Aeginetans. 2 Most 
critics have assumed that Andocides refers to the Five 
Years' Truce between Athens and Sparta, concluded 
in 450 B.C., mainly through the influence of Cimon, 
son of Miltiades ; and that he names the father instead 
of the son. 3 But all agree that the passage as it 
stands is full of inaccuracies, and can be reconciled 
with history only by conjectural emendation. 4 

Again, in § 6 it is said that Athens having been 
plunged into war by the Aeginetans, and having 
done and suffered much evil, at last concluded the 

1 Taylor, correcting Andocides c. 8, p. 257 ; and adopted by Grote, 
from Aeschin. Ue Fals. Lcgat. § v. p. 453, note 3. For the Five Years' 
172, reads irevriqKovTa for irevre : and Truce Clinton gives the date 450, 
so Blass. which I take : Grote, 452 : Curtius 

2 Her. vi. 49. (Hist. Gr. n. p. 402 tr. Ward) 451- 
-'' This view, briefly stated by 450. 

Sluiter, Lcctioncs Andocideac, c. x. 4 Cf. Curtius, Hist. Gr. Vol. n. 

p. 135, is discussed and approved by p. 412 (tr. Ward) : Grote, v. pp. 
Clinton, Fasti Hellen. Vol. n. Append. 455-464. 


Thirty Years' Peace with Sparta (445 B.C.) The 
impression conveyed by this statement is wrong. 
The war between Athens and Aegina began about 
458, and ended in 455 with the reduction of Aegina. 
In 450 Athens and Sparta made a truce for five 
years. A new train of events began with the revolu- 
tion in Boeotia in 447, followed by the revolt of 
Megara and Euboea; and it was this which led up 
to the peace of 445 B.C. 

These inaccuracies are in regard only to the 
earlier history of Athens : and the undoubtedly 
genuine speech On the Mysteries contains allusions 
which are no less inaccurate. In regard to con- 
temporary events the speaker makes no statement 
which can be shown to be incorrect : and on one 
point — the position of Argos at the time — he is 
incidentally confirmed in a striking manner by 
Xenophon. 1 A forger would have studied the early 
history with more care, and would not have known 

1 The speech On the Peace speaks the sacrifice to Poseidon, on the 

of the Argives as having "made a ground that "Argos was Corinth" 

peace on their own account " which — u>s "Apyovs ttjs Kopivdov ovros (Hell. 

protected their territory: § 27 avrol iv. 5. 1). Consequently they claimed 

<5' Idig, elprjvrjv TTOLr^avTes rr\v x^P av the privilege of the Sacred Month 

ov irapexovciv ijunroXe/jieiu. Now Xeno- (lepofirjvia) for Argolis. And so, pre- 

phon tells us that in 392 the Corinth- cisely in the year 390, to which we 

ian government had formed a close saw that the speech On the Peace 

alliance with Argos. The boundary- belongs, it was true that the Argive 

stones between the territories were territory enjoyed a special immunity, 

taken up ; an Argive garrison held This had not been the case in 391 ; 

the citadel of Corinth ; and the very nor was it any longer the case in 388 

name of Corinth was changed to (the next Isthmian year), when 

Argos (Hellen. iv. 4-6). In 391 Agesipolis asked Zeus at Olympia 

Agesilaus had ravaged the Argive and Apollo at Delphi whether he 

territory before taking Lechaeum was bound to respect this fictitious 

(Hell. iv. 4-19). The next year, extension of the iepojurjvia — was ab- 

399, 01. 97. 3, was the year of the solved by the gods from respecting 

Isthmia. The Argives assumed the it — and ravaged Argolis (H. ev. 7. 

presidency of the festival, and offered 2), 



Passage the details of the particular situation so well. But 
Andocides how does it happen that the whole historical passage 
chines? & " (§§ 3-12) reappears, with modifications, in the 
speech of Aeschines On the Embassy ? l Either Aes- 
chines copied this speech, or a later writer copied 
the speech of Aeschines. There can be little doubt 
that the former was the case. Andocides, grand- 
father of the orator, is mentioned in the speech On 
the Peace 2 as a member of the embassy to Sparta in 
445 B.C. In the speech of Aeschines 3 he is named 
as chief of that embassy. This Andocides— an obscure 
member, if he was a member, of the embassy which, 
according to Diodorus, 4 was led by Callias and Chares 
— would not have been named at all except by his 
own grandson. Again, there are traces in Aeschines 
of condensation — not always intelligent — from the 
speech On the Peace. Thus the latter 3 says (re- 
ferring to the years before the Peloponnesian war) — 
"we laid up 1000 talents in the acropolis, and set 
them apart by law for the use of the people at special 
need " : Aeschines, leaving out the qualifying clause, 
makes it appear that the sum of 1000 talents was 
the total sum laid up in the Athenian treasury 6 
during the years of peace. 

1 Aeschin. De Fals. Legal. § 172, 'AvdoKtdrjv eKirepixpavTes koX tovs gv/j.- 
GwrapaxdtvTes de... to § 176, ijvay- irpeG^eis. 

KdG/uLevoi. The topics are the same 4 xn. 7. 

as those of Andoc. De Pace, §§ 3-12 : 5 Andoc. De Pace, § 7, -irpwTov fxev... 

the language is coincident in several durjveyKa/uLev %iAicc raXavra els rr\v 

points, yet, on the whole, much aKporroXiv kcll vo/ulu) /care/cAeicrayuez> 

altered. e^alpera elvcu ry drjficp' tovto 5e 

2 § 6, ypedyjaav oe/ca dvdpes e£ 'AOt]- rpLrjpecs dWas enarbv, k.t.X. 

vaicov airavTWv 7rpea[3eis is AaKedal- fi Aeschin. De Fals. Lcgat. § 174, 

(xova avTOKp&ropes, &v r\v /cat 'Avdo- %(Xta jiev yap raXavra dvrjveyKap.ep 

kl8tjs 6 ir&inros 6 ^/merepos. j'o/xicr/xaros els ttjv aKpo-jroXtv, eKarbv 

3 Aescli. De Fals. Lcgat. § 174, de rpajpeis ere pas, k.t.\. 


The treatment of the subject certainly affords Remarks 
no argument against the authenticity of the speech. Speech. 
Andocides gave little care to arrangement, and here 
there is no apparent attempt to treat the question 
methodically. On the other hand, the remarks about 
Corinth and Argos, 1 and the answer to those who 
demanded the restoration of lands abroad/ 2 are 
both acute and sensible. In this, as in his other 
speech before the ecclesia, the descriptive talent 
of Andocides had little scope ; but, as in the 
speech On the Mysteries, the style is spirited and 

The speech against Alcibiades is certainly spurious. Speech 
It discusses the question whether the speaker, or Alcibiades. 
Nicias or Alcibiades, is to be ostracised. The situa- 
tion resembles one which is mentioned by Plutarch. 
Alcibiades, Nicias and Phaeax were rivals for power, 
and it had become plain that one of the three would 
incur ostracism. 3 They therefore made common cause 
against Hyperbolus, who was ostracised, probably in 
417 B.C. 4 

The supposed date of this speech is fixed by a 
reference in § 22 to the capture of Melos. Melos 
was taken in the winter of 416-415 B.C. Nicias 
left Athens, never to return, in the spring of 415. 

1 §§ 24-27. e%w<jTpata(j<ii> rbv 'TirepfioXov e£ %ttj. 

J §§ 36-39. 6 5e KarairXevaas els 2 l dfiou...<i7re6aue. 

3 Plut. Ale. c. 13. In Arlstid. The death of Hyperbolus is fixed by 
c. 7 and in Nic. c. 11 Plutarch names Thuc. vni. 73 to 411 b.c. Blass, with 
only Alcibiades and Nicias as the Cobet and others, thinks that the 
rivals; adding, in Nic. c. 11, that " six years " of Theopompus represent 
Theophrastus substitutes Phaeax for simply the number of years which 
Nicias. intervened between the banishment 

4 The Schol. on Ar. Vcsp. 1007 of Hyperbolus and his death. This 
quotes Theopompus for the statement brings the ostracism to 417 B.C. 


Therefore the speech could have been spoken only 
in the early part of 415 B.C. 

Analysis. The orator, after stating the point at issue, and censur- 

ing the institution of ostracism (S§ 1-6), enters upon an 
elaborate invective against Alcibiades (§§ 10—40). The 
latter is attacked for having doubled the tribute of the 
allies (§§ 10-12); for having ill-used his wife (§§ 13-15) ; 
for contempt of the law (§§ 16— 19) ; for beating a choregus 
(§§ 20, 21); for insolence after his Olympian victory 
(§§ 24-33). He is then contrasted with the speaker 
(§§ 34-40), who concludes with a notice of his own public 
services (§§ 41, 42). 

The speech The speech is twice cited without suspicion by 
Andocides. Harpocration : it is also named as genuine by Photius. 1 
The biographer of Andocides does not mention it ; 
but, in its place, mentions a Defence in reply to 
Phaeax. 2 There are traces of its ascription in anti- 
quity both to Lysias 3 and to Aeschines. 4 But an 
examination of the speech will show that it cannot 
have been spoken by Andocides, or written by him 
for the use of another ; that it was probably not 
written by any one who lived at the time of which it 
treats ; and that there is good reason for believing it 
to be the work of a late sophist. 

That Andocides spoke this speech is inconceivable. 
The speaker says (§ 8) that he has been four times 
tried; and (§ 41) that he has been ambassador to 

1 Phot. Cod. 261. 4 This may be surmised from Dio- 

genes Laertius, n. 63, who says, 
speaking of Aeschines the Sowatic, 9}v 
8e nod ev tols prjTopLKOLS iKavQs yeyv/x- 
3 Athenaeus (ix. p. 408 c) quotes vaajievos, (hs 5t)\ov e/c re rrjs airokoylas 
some words from § 29 of the speech, [tov irarpbs — Blass virep] Qaiaicos rou 
as from Avcrias kclt , A\kl(3l6.5ov, arpar-qyov koj. AtWos, 

2 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. aTroXoyia irpbs 


Molossia, Thesprotia, Italy and Sicily. But else- 
where, excusing himself for acts committed in the 
very year in which this speech is supposed to have 
been delivered — in 415 — Andocides pleads that he 
was young and foolish at the time. 1 Moreover, no 
writer mentions Andocides as having been in danger 
of ostracism at the same time as Nicias and 

Nor is it credible that Andocides wrote the 
speech for another person — Phaeax, for instance, as 
Valckenar 2 suggests. The style is strongly against 
this. It is far more artificial than anything by 
Andocides which we possess ; it approaches, indeed, 
more nearly to the style of Isocrates. The formal 
antitheses in the proem (§§ 1-2) are a striking 
example of this character. 3 

Taylor 4 and others have ascribed the speech to was 

J # Phaeax the 

Phaeax himself. Plutarch names Phaeax, Alcibiades author? 
and Nicias as the three men over whom ostracism 
was hanging at the same time ; and quotes from a 
speech against Alcibiades, with which the name of 
Phaeax is connected, a story which appears (in a 
different form) in our speech. 5 Then it is known 

1 De Reditu, § 7. 4 Led. Lysiac. c. vi. 

2 See Valckeniir's dissertation, given 5 Pint. Ah. c. 13, (peperac de /cat 
at the end of Chap. i. of Shuter's \6yos rts kclt 'A\iapi&5ov /cat <i>ata/cos 
Led. Andoc. yeypa/i/Jievos ev <$ fierd r£bv dXXcov 

3 Compare also § 21, dXX' v/jlcTs ev yeypa-Krai /cat on rrjs iroXecos 7roXXa 
/lev rats rpaytpdicus tolclvtcl dewpovvres Trofnrela XP 1 " 7 ^ Ka ^ apyvpd K€KT7)fiev7]S 
deivd vo/jdfcre, ycyvopceva de ev rrj irbXei 'AX/ctjStdcfys exprjTo iraacv avroh (bcnrep 
bpuvres ovdev (ppovri^ere, with Isocr. idiots irpbs tt]v kcl6' ryxepav diairav. 
Panegyr. % 168, iirl /j£v reus (rvfHpopais For /cat ^ata/cos Taylor (I.e.) and 
rats viro t£ov ttoitjtQv avyKei/uLevaLs Vater (Rerum Andocidearum, cap. iv.) 
daKpvav d^iovcrtv, dXrjdivd de Trddyj propose virb Qaiaicos : Blass {Alt. 
TroXXd /cat deivd yiyvdfieva did rbv JBereds. 330) vwep $at a/cos. Blass 
iroXe/jLov i(popu)VT€s roaovrov deovaiv thinks that, whoever the author of 
eXeelv, k.t.X. the speech was, the person meant to 



The Speech 
by a late 


from Thucydides that Phaeax went on an embassy 
at least to Sicily and Italy. 1 Valckenar's and Buhn- 
kenV arguments against Taylor are inconclusive. If 
the speech was really written at the time of which it 
treats, it cannot be disproved, any more than it can 
be proved, that Phaeax was the author. 

But an overwhelming amount of evidence tends 
to show that the speech is the work of a later 
sophist. First stand two general reasons : the sup- 
posed occasion of the speech, and the style of its 

As far as the nature of ostracism is known to us, 
the whole speech involves a thorough misconception 
of it : it assumes a situation which could never have 
existed. Once every year the ecclesia was formally 
asked by its presidents whether, in that year, an 
ostracism should be held. If it voted affirmatively, 
a day was fixed. The market - place was railed in 
for voting, every citizen might write any name he 
pleased on the shell which he dropped into the urn ; 
and if against any one name there were six thousand 
votes, the person so indicated was banished for ten — 
in later times, for five — years. The characteristic 
feature of the whole proceeding was the absence of 
everything like an open contest between definite 

be defended was Phaeax ; and that 
the dwoXoyia irpbs ^cua/ca in [Pint.] 
Vit. Andoc. may have come from an 
original diro\oyia Qaiata, i.e. inrkp 

The story of the sacred vessels 
can hardly have been taken by 
Plutarch only from § 29 of the speech, 
where it runs : — rd irofjiireia irapd tup 
apx^eoopQiv alTTjcrdfievos &is els rain- 

vtKia rrj irporepaiq. t?js Over las Xt >r t (J ®" 
fxevos ii;7]7r&T7)<T€ ,voi aTro5ovvo.i o;'tc 

1 Time. v. 4. 

2 Rulmken. Hlstoria Cril, Oratt. 
Graec. (Opusc. I. p. 326). Ruhnken, 
as Sluiter points out. borrows largely 
from Valckenar's dissertation (sec 
above), which liud appeared 12 years 


rivals. The very object of ostracism was to get 
rid of a dangerous man in the quietest and least 
invidious way. No names were mentioned ; far less 
was discussion dreamed of. The idea of a man rising 
in the ecclesia or other public gathering, and stating 
that he was one of three persons who were in danger 
of ostracism ; then inveighing at great length and 
with extraordinary bitterness against one of the 
other two ; and concluding with a vindication of 
his own consequence — would have probably seemed 
to Athenians of the days of ostracism incredibly 
indecent and absurd. In the first place, they would 
have been offended by his open assumption — whether 
true or not — that he was one of the citizens who had 
rendered the resort to ostracism necessary ; secondly, 
they would have resented his attempt to prejudice 
the ballot ; and if, in the end, he had escaped, his 
escape would probably have been due to their con- 
viction that, as the poet Plato said of Hyperbolus, 
" it was not for such fellows that shells were 
invented." 1 But the speaker against Alcibiacles 
does not only himself speak thus ; he asserts that 
Alcibiades is about to address the house next, and 
to endeavour to move it by his tears. 2 

If the nature of the situation supposed were not style. 
enough, the style of the composition would in itself 
be almost decisive. The speaker begins with a formal 

1 Ap. Plut. Ale. c. 13, ov yap tolov- ostracised without any secret voting 

tojv €lv€k oarpax evpedrj. — as if by a show of hands. But in 

- § 39. Grote (iy. p. 202, note) § 2 the ovre before 8ia\pr)(pL(raju,evc0i> 

remarks on the erroneous conception Kpvfidrjv is now omitted by Schleier- 

of ostracism involved in the speaker macher and Blass. 
complaining that he is going to be 


statement of the matter in hand, evidently meant 
for a reader ; and then goes on to string together 
all the tritest stories about Aleibiades. This — 
the body of the speech — has the unmistakable air 
of a compilation. 
Particular The arguments from the supposed occasion and 


from the style are confirmed by the evidence of 
particular misstatements. In §§ 22, 23 Aleibiades 
is said to have had a child by a Melian woman who 
came into his power after the capture of Melos ; but 
the speech, as has been shown, can refer only to the 
spring of 415 : and Melos was taken only in the 
winter of 416-415. In § 33 Cimon is said to have 
been banished because he had married his own sister. 
In § 13 the commander at Delium — a battle fought 
but nine years before the supposed date of the speech 
— is called Hipponicus instead of Hippocrates. The 
two last blunders would have been impossible for an 
Athenian of that age. On the whole there can be 
little doubt that in this speech we must recognise 
the work of a late rhetorician who saw, in the 
juxtaposition of Aleibiades, Nicias and Andocides, a 
dramatic subject; who had only an indistinct notion 
of how ostracism was managed in olden times ; and 
who believed himself sufficiently prepared for his task 
when he had read in Plutarch all the scandalous 
stories relating to Aleibiades. 
Lost Beside the extant speeches of Andocides, the 


titles of four others have been preserved, (l) Plu- 
Addressto tarch quotes an address " To the Associates/' or mem- 
dates, bers of the oligarchical clubs, as authority for a 

statement that the remains of Themistocles had been 


dishonoured at Athens ; but adds that the statement 
was made by Andocides merely for the purpose of 
exasperating the oligarchs against the people. 1 
Kuhnken, 2 with whom Sauppe 3 agrees, thought that 
this Address was a letter written by Andocides, then 
in exile, to the fellow-conspirators of Peisander in 411. 
But the breach of Andocides with the oligarchical 
party, after his informations in 415, was decisive and 
final; when he returned to Athens in 411 he was at 
once denounced by Peisander and imprisoned. It 
seems better, then, with Kirchhoff 4 and Blass, 5 to 
refer this Address to an earlier time than 415 : perhaps 
to the years 420-418, a period of keen struggle be- 
tween the oligarchical and popular parties at Athens.- Deiibera- 

^ r r r ^ tive Speech. 

(2) The " Deliberative Speech" quoted by the lexi- 
cographers 7 is identified by Kirchhoff with the last 
mentioned. Its title seems, however, to show plainly 
that it was of a different kind, and was either spoken, 
or supposed to be spoken, in debate in the ecclesia. 

(3) Harpocration once quotes a " Speech On the Infor- Speech on 

)) / \ io/s-xj? 1 1 c» t the infor- 

mation \7T6pi rfjs €V6€l!;€(DS) tor the WOrd ^7]T7]Trj^, mation. 

which occurs twice in the speech On the Mysteries. 8 
Hence the two speeches have sometimes been identified. 
But the pseudo-Plutarch expressly distinguishes them. 9 
And the author of the speech against Andocides states 

1 Plut. Themist c. 32. 1. p. 94, v. 25. Photius, p. 288, 

2 Hist. Crit. Or. Gr. (Opusc. 1. p. 23. 

326). 8 §§ 36, 40. 

3 Or. Att. 11. p. 165. 9 [Plut.] Vit. Andoc. mentions 

4 Andocidea, Hermes 1. pp. 1-20. first the speeches On the Mysteries 

5 Att. Bereds. p. 286 ; and Andoc. and On his Return ; and then adds, 
(Teubner) p. 96. cnh^erdi 5e avrou /cat 6 irepl rrjs 

6 Cf. Plut. Ale. c. 13. eudel^eoos \6yos /cat diroXoyla irpbs 

7 Antiatticista, Bekker, Anecd. vol. $ata/ca /cat 6 7T€pl rijs elprjurjs. 




that two informations had been laid against him in 
the same year. 1 It is true that there is no proof of 
the earlier information having resulted in a trial ; 
and that the title of the lost speech, if really distinct 
from the De My steviis, was ill-chosen. But it is 
difficult to suppose that the biographer could have 
made such a blunder as to quote the same speech by 
two different titles in the same sentence. On the 
whole, Sauppe's 2 view, that the speech On the Mys- 
teries and the speech On the Information were 
distinct, appears most probable. If the lost speech 
referred, like the De Mysteriis, to the Hermae case, 
it must have contained the word which Harpocration 
quotes ; and it would have been natural for him to 
quote it from the earlier of the two compositions in 
which it occurred. (4) The " Eeply to Pliaeax" is 
known only from the pseudo-Plutarch, who does not 
name the speech " Against Alcibiades." 3 It has been 
shown that the latter is probably the work of a late 
sophist ; and it is likely that Pliaeax, rather than 
Andocides, was intended to be the speaker. If, then, 
it could be assumed that " Reply to Pliaeax" is an 
inaccurate quotation of the title, which ought to have 
been cited as " Reply for Phaeax," there is no difficulty 
in supposing the identity of this work with the 
extant speech Against Alcibiades. 

Besides the names of these four speeches, two 
fragments. fragments f un known context have been preserved. 4 
One of them expresses the hope that Athens may 

Eeply to 


1 [Lys.] in Andoc. § 30. 

- 0. A. it. p. 165. 

8 [Plut.] Fit. Andoc. 1. < 

4 Sauppe, 0. A. n. p. 166 : Blass, 

Andoc. (Teubner) p. 97. 


not "again" see the country people thronging in to 
seek shelter within the walls. This seems to refer to 
the invasion by Archidamus in 431. If this be so, the 
speech to which the fragment belonged was probably 
older than 413, when Agis occupied Deceleia, and 
when the scenes of 431 must have been to some 
extent repeated. Such a passage might have found 
place either in the address To the Associates or in the 
Deliberative Speech. 1 The other fragment speaks of 
Hyperbolus as then at Athens ; and is therefore older, 
at least, than 417. 2 

1 Sauppe refers the fragment to distinct, the fragment may belong 

the irpbs rovs eraipovs. So. also, just as "well to the cvjjl(3ov\€vtikos. 
does Kirchhoff, identifying the npbs 2 On the date of the ostracism 

rovs eraipovs with the <rv(ipov- of Hyperbolus, see above, p. 131, 

XevTLKos. If these, however, were note 4. 



Lysias, though he passed most of his years at Athens, 
did not possess the citizenship, and, except in the 
impeachment of Eratosthenes, appears to have had no 
personal contact with the affairs of the city. Yet, as 
in literary style he is the representative of Atticism, 
so in his fortunes he is closely associated with the 
Athenian democracy. He suffered with it in its two 
greatest calamities — the overthrow in Sicily and the 
tyranny of the Thirty ; he took part in its restoration ; 
and afterwards, in his speeches for the law-courts, he 
became perhaps the best, because the soberest, ex- 
ponent of its spirit — the most graceful and most 
versatile interpreter of ordinary Athenian life. 

Cephalus, the father of Lysias, was a Syracusan, 
w T ho settled at Athens as a resident alien on the 
invitation of Pericles. 1 Such an invitation would 
scarcely have carried much weight before Pericles had 
begun to be a leading citizen, — i.e. before about 460 
B.C. ; and the story which represented Cephalus as 
having been driven from Syracuse when the democracy 

1 Lys. in Eratosth. § 4. 


was overthrown by Gelon (485 B.C.) is therefore not 
very probable. 1 

Lysias was born at Athens after his father had 
come to live there. The year of his birth cannot be 
determined. Dionysius assumes the same year as 
the pseudo-Plutarch — 01. 80. 2., 459 B.C. ; but admits, 
what the latter does not, that it is a mere assumption. 2 
And the ground upon which the assumption rested is 
evident. Lysias was known to have gone to Thurii 
when he was fifteen. Thurii was founded 01. 84. 2., 
443 B.C. : it was inferred, then, that Lysias was born 
in 459 B.C. But there is nothing to prove that Lysias 
went to Thurii in the year of its foundation. The 
date 459 B.C. must be regarded, therefore, as a mere 
guess. It is the guess, however, which had the 
approval of the ancients ; and it is confirmed by this 
circumstance — that Lysias was reported to have died 
at about eighty, 3 and that, in fact, his genuine works, 
so far as they are extant, cease at about 380 B.C. 4 
In the absence of certainty, then, it seems probable 
that the date 459 is not far wrong. 

This is not, however, the prevalent modern view. 

1 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. ws 8i rives, 3 Dionys, Lys. c. 12: [Hut] Vit. 
inirecrovra rCov 'ZvpaKOva&v rfv'iKa virh Lys, 

YeXwvos ervpavvovvro. 4 The speech Against Evandrus 

2 Dionys. Lys. c. 1 says that in (382 B.C.), and that For Pherenicus, 
the archonship of Callias (412 B.C.) of which a fragment remains (381 
Lysias was forty -seven, as one or 380 B.C.) — are his latest known 
might conjecture — us av ris eUd- works. The two lost speeches For 
ueiev. Again in c. 12 he supposes Iphicrates (Sauppe. Frag, xvni. and 
that Lysias may have died in 379 lxv, Att. Or. 11. pp. 178. 190) 
at the age of 80. The pseudo-Plu- belonged respectively to the years 
tarch Vit. Lys. says boldly : — ye- 371 and 354 ; but the judgment of 
vofjievos 'AdrjprjcFLv iirl <£>i\oK\eov$ Dionysius in rejecting them (Lys. 
apxovros rod /xerct ^paaiKXrj, Kara c. 12) has been generally confirmed 
rb devrepov ero? tyj^ dydovKoaTrjs by modern writers, 



Lysias was said to have gone to Italy after his father's 
death ; 1 and this fact is the criterion for the date of 
his birth on -which C. F. Hermann 2 and Baur 3 rely, 
as the ancient writers relied on the foundation -year of 
Tlmrii. Cephalus is introduced in Plato's Republic, 
of which the scene is laid (C. F. Hermann thinks) in 
430 B.C. Lysias, then, it is agreed, cannot have gone 
to Thurii before 429, or have been born before 444. 
Blass justly objects to a dialogue of Plato being used 
as an authority for a date of this kind ; but he him- 
self arrives at the same conclusion on another ground 
— viz. because Cephalus cannot have come to Athens 
earlier than 460, and had lived there (as his son says 4 ) 
thirty years. Again, Lysias was certainly older than 
Isocrates, 5 who w T as born in 436. The birth of Lysias 
must therefore be put (Blass thinks) between 444 
and 436. 

This view depends altogether on the statement 
that Lysias remained at Athens till his father's death 
— a statement vouched for only by the Plutarchic 
biographer, who is surely untrustworthy on such a 
point. Further, it assumes both the date and the 
literal biographical accuracy of the Republic ; or else 

1 rod irarpbs 'rjdrj reTeXevrrfKoros : at a given time long before. But 
pseudo-Plut. Vit. Lys. when, in such a dialogue, one 

2 Gesammclte Abhandlungen, p. of two persons contemporary with 
25 Plato is represented as very de- 

"* Uebersetung d. Reclen d. Lys. cidedl y older tliau the otlier > lt 

must be assumed that this was the 

pp. 5 ff. — Blass, Attisch. Bereds. 
p. 333. 

case. To infer from the Republic 
that Cephalus was alive in 430 B.C. 
4 Lys. in Eratosth. § 4. wald be ragll> But it is perfectly 

"' A dialogue of Plato can seldom safe to infer from the Phacdrus 

be safely cited to prove that one (p. 278 e, etc.) that Lysias 'was an 

of the persons of the imaginary orator of matured powers when 

conversation was, or was not, alive Isocrates was a boy. 


— what is at least doubtful — that Cephalus could not 
have come to Athens before 460. Lastly, it makes 
it difficult to accept the well -accredited account of 
Lysias having reached, or passed, the age of eighty ; 
since all traces of his industry, hitherto constant, 
cease when, at this rate, he would have been no more 
than sixty-six. 1 The question must be left uncertain. 
But the modern hypothesis that Lysias was born 
between 444 and 436 B.C. does not seem, at least, 
more probable than the ancient hypothesis that he 
was born about 45 9. 2 

Besides Lysias, Cephalus had two other sons. 
Polemarchus and Euthydemus 3 — Polemarchus being 
the eldest of the three ; and a daughter, afterwards 
married to Brachyllus. The hospitable disposition 
of Cephalus is marked in the opening of the Republic, 
of which the scene is laid at the house of his eldest 
son. He complains that Socrates does not come 
often now to see them at the Peiraeus, and begs that 
in future he will come to them without ceremony, as 
to intimate friends. 4 It is easy to believe that, in 

1 Blass distinctly admits this : — Lysias and Euthydemus as the 
< ' Starb also Lysias bald nach die- brothers of Polemarchus. Dionysius 
sem Jahre, so sind freilich jene {Lys. 1) speaks of two brothers of 
Angaben liber das Alter, welches Lysias. But the pseudo - Plutarch 
er erreichte,vblligaufzugeben." Att. gives him three — Polemarchus, 
Berccls. p. 336. Eudidus (Euthydemus), and Bra- 
chyllus. Blass seems right in con- 

2 Stallbaum, in Ids Lysiaca ad ^ from Demosth> Nmer% § 22 

Lllustrandas Phaedri Platonici ori- 

that Brachyllus was not brother, 

(fines (Leipzig, 1851) pp. 6 f., takes but brotlier . in . laWj of Lysias . It is 

the following dates : Birth of Lysias, 

there said that Lysias married the 

459: Foundation of Thurii, 446: d hter of Brachyllus, his own 

Cephalus conies to Athens, 444: ^^ (d5eX0t5 ^ Hencej prob . 

Lysias goes to Thum, 443 : Death ot ^ the migtake of the so . calle(1 

Lysias, 378. Plutarch. 

3 Plato (Jiq). p. 328 b) mentions 4 Plat. Rep. p. 328 d. 


the lifetime of Pericles, the house of the wealthy 
Sicilian whom his friendship had brought to Athens 
was an intellectual centre, the scene of many such 
gatherings as Plato imagined at the house of 
Polemarchus ; and that Lysias really grew up, as 
Dionysius says, in the society of the most distin- 
guished Athenians. 1 
Lysias at At the age of fifteen 2 — his father, according to 

one account, being dead a — Lysias went to Thurii, 
accompanied certainly by his eldest brother Polem- 
archus ; perhaps also by Euthydemus. 4 At Thurii, 
where he passed his youth and early manhood, he 
is said to have studied rhetoric under Tisias 5 of 
Syracuse, himself the pupil of Corax, reputed founder 
of the art. If, as is likely, Tisias was born about 
485 B.C. and did not go to Athens till about 418, 
there is nothing impossible in this account. At any 
rate it is probable that Lysias had lessons from some 
teacher of the Sicilian school, a school the trammels 
of which his maturer genius so thoroughly shook off. 
The overthrow of the Athenian arms in Sicily brought 
into power an anti- Athenian faction at Thurii. Lysias 
and his brother, with three hundred persons accused of 
" Atticisms;," 6 w^ere driven out, and fled to Athens in 
412 B.C. 7 A tradition, idle, indeed, but picturesque, 

1 Dionys. Lys. 1 : avveiraiMOr) 5 The pseudo-Plut. says waibev- 
rois e7ri<pave<TTdT0is 'AOrjvaiuv. The o/jLevos irapa Tialg. /cat ISiKia rots 
pseudo-Plut. repeats the words: to HvpaKovaiois. Blass thinks that 
fieu TrpQrov vvveiraibeveTo toIs eTricp, the name of the unknown Nicias 
'AQrjv. arose out of Ttcrta by a dittography, 

2 Dionys. Lys. 1. 6 ' Attikktjulov eyKKrjdelcn, Dionys. 

3 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. Lys. 1. 

4 Dionysius (1. c.) says criV d8e\- 7 Dionysius and the pseudo-Plut. 
(pols 5v<rL : the pseudo-Plut. mentions both mark the date by the archon- 
Polemarchus only. ship of Callias. 


connected the Athenian disaster in Sicily with the 
last days of Lysias in southern Italy. To him was 
ascribed a speech, possessed by the ancients, in which 
the captive general Nicias implored the mercy of his 
Sicilian conquerors. 1 

The next seven years at Athens — from 412 to His me at 

J Athens 

405 — seem to have been years of peace and pros- from 412 
perity for the brothers. They were the owners of 
three houses, one in the town, in which Polemarchus 
lived ; 2 another in the Peiraeus, occupied by Lysias ; 
and, adjoining the latter, a shield - manufactory, 
employing a hundred and twenty slaves. Informers 
— who were especially dangerous to rich foreigners — 
did not vex them ; 3 they had many friends ; and, in 
the liberal discharge of public services, were patterns 
to all resident - aliens. 4 The possession of house- 
property 5 shows that they belonged — as their father 
Cephalus had doubtless belonged — to that privileged 
class of resident -aliens who paid no special tax as 
such, and who, as being on a par in respect of taxes 
with citizens, were called isoteleis. If Lysias con- 
tinued his rhetorical studies during this quiet time, 
he probably had not yet begun to write speeches for 

1 See the short fragment of this 3 In Eratosth. § 4. 

speech virep Ni/aou in Sauppe 0. A. 
11. p. 199. Dionysius unhesitatingly 

the Thirty, ovx jxoi ws ix€tolkovv- 
ras Cocrirep avrol €7to\lt€vopto. 

4 Cf. In Eratostk. § 20, where 

. , , ., , ;1 n . . Lysias speaks of himself and his 

rejected it, and the lew remaining , ,-, 

, ' • .1 1 j t . brother as Traaas ras yoprryias %o- 

words sumce m themselves to betray , , . .,, 

, . . . . , , p-nyvaavras — and, 111 contrast with 

a vulgar rhetorician: — kacuw rov 

apL&xyTov /cat avavixaxV T0V oXe- 

6pov, k.t.X. But it must have been 

at least as old as the latter part of 5 Boeckli, Publ. Econ. Bk. 1. c. 

the fourth century B.C., since Theo- 24. A resident - alien could under 

phrastus quoted it (Dionys. Lys. 14). no circumstances be an owner of 

2 This follows from Lys. In Era- land ; and only an isoteles could be 

tosih. § 16. owner of a house. 



the law-courts. A rich man, as he then was, had no 
motive for taking to a despised drudgery ; and the only 
extant speech ascribed to him which refers to a date 
earlier than 403 — that for Polystratus — is probably 
spurious. Cicero, 1 quoting Aristotle, says that Lysias 
once kept a rhetorical school, but gave it up because 
Theodoras surpassed him in technical subtlety. If 
this story is worth anything, there is perhaps one 
reason for referring it to the years 412-405 ; it cer- 
tainly imputes to Lysias the impatience of a wealthy 
amateur. At any rate the ornamental pieces enumer- 
ated in the lists of his works — the encomia, the 
letters, the show -speeches- — may have belonged in 
part to this period of his life. After 403 he wrote 
for the law-courts as a profession, and wrote with 
an industry which can have left little time for the 
rhetoric of display. 
The Soon after the Thirty had taken power in the 

spring of 404, two of them, Theognis and Peison, 
proposed that measures should be adopted against 
the resident-aliens ; nominally, because that class was 
disaffected — really, because it was rich. Ten resident- 
aliens were chosen out for attack, two poor men being 
included for the sake of appearances. Lysias and 
Polemarchus were on the list. When Theognis and 
Peison, with their attendants, came to the house of 
Lysias in the Peiraeus, they found him entertaining a 
party of friends. The guests were driven off, and 
their host was left in the charge of Peison, while 
Theognis and his companions went to the shield- 

1 Cic. Brut. c. 48 : nam Lysiam subtilior, in orationibus ieiunior, 
prima projitcri solitum artem dicendi, orationes eum scribere aliis cocpisse > 
deinde, quod Theodorus esset in arte artem removisse. 


manufactory close by to take an inventory of the 
slaves. Lysias, left alone with Peison, asked if he 
would take a sum of money to save him. " Yes," 
said Peison, " if it is a large sum." They agreed on a 
talent ; and Lysias went to bring it from the room 
where he kept his money-box. Peison, catching sight 
j?f the box, called up two servants, and told them to 
take its whole contents. Thus robbed of more than 
thrice the amount bargained for, Lysias begged to be 
left at least enough to take him out of the country. 
Peison replied that he might consider himself lucky 
if he got off with his life. They were then going to 
leave the house, when they met at the door two other 
emissaries of the Thirty. Finding that Peison was 
now going to the house of Polemarchus in the town, 
these men relieved him of Lysias, whom they took to 
the house of one Damnippus. Theognis was there 
already with some other prisoners. As Lysias knew 
Damnippus, he took him aside, and asked him to 
assist his escape. Damnippus thought that it would be 
best to speak directly to Theognis, who, he was sure, 
would do anything for money. While Theognis and 
Damnippus were talking in the front hall, Lysias 
slipped through the door, which chanced to be open, 
leading from the first court of the house to the second. 1 
He had still two doors to pass through — luckily they 
were both unlocked. He escaped to the house of 
Archeneos, the master of a merchant-ship, close by, 
and sent him up to Athens to learn what had become 
of Polemarchus. Archeneos came back with the news 

1 In Eratosth. § 16, rptCbv be dvp&v these must have been the (JravKos 
ovcr&v as ^det fxe dteXdeiv diraaaL dvpa, leading from the outer to the 
avtcpy^vai €tv%ov. The first of inner av\r). 


that Polemarchus had been met in the street by 
Eratosthenes, one of the Thirty, and taken straight to 
prison. The same night Lysias took boat to Megara. 
Polemarchus received the usual message of the 
Thirty l — to drink the hemlock. Although the pro- 
perty of which the brothers had been despoiled was 
so valuable — including almost the whole stock of the, 
shield-manufactory, gold and silver plate, furniture, 
and a large sum of money — the decencies of burial 
were refused to Polemarchus. He was laid out in the 
prison on a common stretcher, — one friend gave a 
cloth to throw over the body, another a cushion for 
the head, and so forth. A pair of gold earrings were 
taken from the ears of his widow. 2 
Lysias aids During the ten or twelve months of the exile — 

the Exiles. 

from the spring of 404 to the spring of 403 — Lysias 
seems to have been active in the democratic cause. 
According to his biographer 3 — whose facts were prob- 
ably taken from Lysias himself — he presented the 
army of the patriots with two hundred shields, and 
with a sum of two thousand drachmas ; gained for it, 
with the help of one Hermon, 4 upwards of three 
hundred recruits ; and induced his friend Thrasydaeus 
of Elis 5 to contribute no less than two talents. Im- 
mediately upon the return from the Peiraeus to the 

1 to vir' eneivwv eldtcrfievov irapdy- and also from that irepi tQ)v 18iuv 
yeXfia, iriveiv ndbveiov : In Eratosth. § evepyecriQv (quoted by Harpocration, 
17. s. vv. Ke?ot, Qriyaievai, /xeTcnrupyiov), 

2 In Eratosth. § 19. For the if indeed this was distinct from the 
whole account of the arrest, see former. 

that speech, §§ 6-20. 4 'Epfiavi in the Fit. lys. § 7 ought 

3 [Pint.] Fit. lys. The facts probably to be "Epp.covi, as Blass 
mentioned there may have been assumes, Alt. Bereds. p. 340. 

taken from the speech of Lysias on 5 [Pint] Fit. Lys. Cf. Xen. Hcllcn. 

the motion of Archinus [ib. § 11), in. 2. 27. 


city in the spring of 403, Thrasybulus proposed that 

the citizenship should be conferred upon Lysias ; and 

the proposal was carried in the ecclesia. In one 

respect, however, it was informal. No measure could, 

in strictness, come before the popular assembly which 

was not introduced by a preliminary resolution (pro- 

bouleuma) of the Senate. But at the moment when 

this decree was passed, the Senate had not yet been 

reconstituted after the anarchy ; x and the probouleuma 

had therefore been wanting. On this ground Archinus, 

a colleague of Thrasybulus, arraigned the decree 

(under the Graphe Paranomon) as unconstitutional, 

and it was annulled. 2 The whole story has been 

doubted; 3 but it is difficult to reject it when the 

Plutarchic biographer expressly refers to the speech 

made by Lysias in connexion with the protest of 

Archinus. 4 Whether this speech was or was not 

identical with that of Lysias On his own Services 5 

cannot be decided ; but the latter must at least have 

been made upon this occasion. 

Stripped of a great part of his fortune by the The pro 

Thirty Tyrants, and further straitened, probably, by life of 


1 This appears from the statement xprj^iapLa. 

of the pseudo-Plut. Fit. Lys. §8, 3 As by Scheibe (Blass, p. 340), 

that the proposal was made /mera rr\v who thinks that the biographer 

k&0o5ov e7r' avapxLas ttjs irpb EvicXeidov, assumed it from the vague allusion 

that is, immediately after the return in Aeschin. in Ctes. § 195 : 'Apxiz/os 

in the spring of the year 403. Later yap 6 ck Ko'lXtjs iypd\paro irapavb- 

in the same year Eucleides became fiuy QpaavjSovXov top ^LreipUa ypd- 

archon ; and with the revival of the \pavrd n irapd tovs vo/llovs, eva t&v 

constitutional forms which com- crvyKaTeXdbvTwv avry dirb ^vXtjs, teal 

menced in his archonship the dvapx^a elXe. This says only, tl. 

was held to have ended. 4 ecrri 5' avrov /cat 6 virkp rod iprj- 

2 [Plut.] Fit. Lys. b fxev drj/j-os (picr/JLaros (Xbyos) iypdxf/aro 'Apx^os, 
enupcocre rr\v Scopedv, aireveyKafievov tt)v Trokireiav avrov irepieXdov : Fit. 
de 'Apx&ov ypacpiqv irapavb^iwv hid Lys. §11. 

rb aTTpofiovkevTov elaaxOrjvai edXw to 5 See p. 148, note 3. 


his generosity to the exiles, Lysias seems now to have 
settled down to hard work at Athens. His activity 
as a writer of speeches for the law-courts falls — as far 
as we know — between the years 403 and 380 B.C. 
That it must have been great and constant is shown 
by the fact that Dionysius speaks of him as having 
written "not fewer than two hundred forensic 
speeches." 1 No other of the Attic orators was credited 
with so many as a hundred compositions of all kinds. 2 
First in time and first, too, in importance among the 
The im- extant orations of Lysias is that Against Eratosthenes, 
of Erato- in whom he saw not only one of the Thirty Tyrants, 
but the murderer of his brother Polemarchus. It was 
probably in 403 that Eratosthenes was impeached. 
The speech of Lysias, memorable as a display of 
eloquence, valuable, too, as a sufferer's picture of a 
dreadful time, has this further interest, that it is the 
only forensic speech known to have been spoken by 
Lysias himself, and that it marks his only personal 
contact with the politics of Athens. 
Lysias and Lysias had probably been a professional speech- 
writer for about four years when Socrates was brought 
to trial in 399. According to the popular account, 
Lysias wrote a defence for Socrates to speak in court, 
but Socrates declined to use it. 3 In the story itself 
there is nothing improbable ; Cephalus and his son 
Lysias had been the intimate friends of Socrates. But 
it may be suspected that the story arose from a 
confusion. At some time later than 392 B.C. the 

1 Be Lys. e. 17. 3 Diog. Laert. n. 40 : [Plut.] Fit. 

2 Even including doubtful speeches, Lys.: Cic. de Orat. I. 54 § 231: 
as Blass observes, Att. Bereds. p. Quint, n. 15 § 30, xi. 1 § 9 : Valer. 
344. Max. vi. 4. 2 : Stob. Flor. vn. 56. 


vii LYSIAS—LIFE 151 

. ^ _ 

sophist Polycrates published an epideictic Accusation 
of Socrates, 1 and, in reply to it, Lysias wrote a speech 
In Defence of Socrates. 2 This was extant in antiquity; 
and some one who had heard of it, but who knew 
nothing of the circumstances under which it was 
written, probably invented the story that it had been 
offered to, and declined by, the philosopher. The 
self - denial of Socrates would be complete when, 
after rejecting the aid of money, he had rejected the 
aid of the best contemporary rhetoric. 3 

Lysias is named in the ordinary text of his own Lysias at 
speech On the Property of Aristophanes as taking 
part in an embassy to Dionysius the elder of Syra- 
cuse, an embassy of which the date cannot be put 
below 389 B.C. But there can be little doubt as to 


1 The KaTTjyopia XooKpdrovs of Poly- 
crates is mentioned by Suidas, s. v. 
Ilo\vKpdT7js : Isocr. Bus. §§ 3, 5, and 
auctor Argum. : Aelian, V. H. xi. 
10 : Quint. 11. 17, ef. in. 1 : Diog. 
Laert. 11. 38. Diogenes notices, 
from Favorhms, that Polycrates had 
referred to the rebuilding of the walls 
by Conon : therefore, as Bentley first 
pointed out (tie Epist. Socr. § 6, p. 
51), the speech cannot have been 
written before 392 B.r. 

2 Scliol. ad Aristid. p. 113. 16 
(vol. in. p. 480 Dind.), olde rbv Zw- 
KpaT7)v irpbs rovs vtovs del tov 'Odva- 
aea davjnd^ovra...d)s HoXvKpdrrjs ev tw 
/car' avrou Xoycp <pr)<jl /cat Avaias ev rep 
irpbs HokvKpdrrjv virep avrov. The 
title of the speech probably was 'Yirep 
^cok parous irpbs HoXvKpdr-qv. 

3 Dr. L. Holscher (Quacstiuneulae 
Lysiacae, Herford, 1857, pp. 4 ff.) 
defends the ordinary account, believ- 
ing that Lysias really composed a 
defence which Socrates declined to 
use. He thinks that the diro\oyia 

^uiKparovs mentioned among the 
works of Lysias by Phot. God. 262, 
Antiatt. in Bekker Aneccl. p. 115. 8, 
Schol. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 331 b, and 
[Plut.] Vit. Lys., was distinct from 
the speech virep HojKpaTovs written in 
reply to Polycrates, and cited by 
the scholiast on Aristides. He re- 
marks that in the Plutarchic life the 
Apologia is described as etrroxoiafievy) 
tCov StKaarCov — which is meant, he 
thinks, to mark that it was more 
practical, more forensic, than Plato's 
Apologia Socratis. He observes also 
that the scholiast on the Gorgias 
(1. c. ) notices the speech of Lysias as 
having contained matter about 
Anytus and Meletus. But neither 
of these references affords any good 
ground for assuming that there was 
an 'AiroXoyia l^coKparovs by Lysias 
distinct from his reply to Polycrates. 
The latter had been read by the 
scholiast on Aristeides. Sauppe 
shows that the supposed Apologia 
was at all events not extant in 
antiquity {0. A. 11. p. 203). 


the correctness of the emendation which removes his 
name from that passage. 1 There is better reason for 
believing another story in which the name of Lysias 
is associated with that of the elder Dionysius. AVe 
have good authority 2 for the statement that the 
Olymjnacus, of which a large fragment remains, was 
spoken by Lysias in person at the Olympic festival of 
388 B.C., to which Dionysius had sent a splendid 
embassy. In that speech Lysias pointed out that 
two great enemies — the despot of Syracuse in the 
west, the king of Persia in the east — threatened 
Greece ; and urged union among Greeks with all 
the eagerness and with more than the sagacity of 
chrono- As has already been noticed, the indisputably 

limit of genuine works of Lysias, so far as they are known, 
work! 1 ' 1 cease about 380 B.C. The latest, the speech for 
Pherenicus of which a fragment remains, belongs to 
381 or 380. Of the two speeches for Iphicrates, 
also represented by fragments only, one belonged to 
371, the other to 354 ; 3 but Dionysius pronounced 
both spurious, partly on the external ground that 
Lysias could not then have been living ; partly — 
which, for us, is the important point — on the in- 
ternal evidence of style. 4 It seems probable that 

1 Lys. de bonis Aristo r ph. § 19, person whose friend lie was. Kayser 

^ovXofxevov Kovwvos Tre/mirecy tlvol els proposed to insert Aiovvcriq) between 

HiKekiav ['Apio-Tocpavris] $X €T0 v7ro<TTas Avaiov and <pi\ov. Sauppe's remedy 

fierci EvvdfMov /cat Aval ov, <pi\ov ovtos is, as Blass says, simpler and better. 

koX J&vov, rb ir\i)0os to bfdrepov 2 Dionys. Lys. c. 29: Diod. XIV. 

irXelcrra ayada TveiroiT] kotos, k.t.X. -j^qq 
Sauppe substitutes Atowaiov for the 

words Kal Avriov. Obviously the * See Sau PPe, 0. A. n. p. 1/8, 
words (piXov ovtos /cat £evov require to 

be denned by the mention of the 4 Dionys. Lys. c. 12. 


Lysias died in, or soon after, 380 B.C., at the age of 
about eighty. 1 

The character, as well as the capacity, of Lysias character 
must be judged from the indirect evidence of his own 
writings. Circumstances kept him out of political 
life, in which his versatility and shrewdness would 
probably have held and improved the position 
which great powers of speech, must soon have 
won. The part which he took during the troubles 
under the Thirty proved him a generous friend to 
Athens, as the Olympiacus shows him to have been 
a wise citizen 2 of Greece ; but his destiny was not 
that of a man of action. It is not likely that he 
regretted this much, though he must have felt his 
exclusion from the Athenian franchise as the refusal 
of a reward to which he had claims. His real 
strength — as far as can be judged now — lay in his 
singular literary tact. A fine perception of character 
in all sorts of men, and a faculty for dramatising 
it, aided by a sense of humour always under 
control ; a certain pervading gracefulness and flexi- 
bility of mind; rhetorical skill, masterly in a sense 
hardly dreamed of at that day, since it could conceal 
itself — these were his most distinctive qualities and 
powers. His liberal discharge of public services, 
and his generosity to the exiles in 404, accord with 
the disposition which is suggested by the fragments 

1 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. €Te\evT7](T€v tls TcXevTTJaai Avaiav, k.t.X. 

dydorjKovTa Ztt] (5lovs, rj Cos rives e% xal 2 The expression is his own : he 

ej3dofjLr)Koi>TCL, 7) Cos nves virep oydorj- claims to give counsel as a good 

kovtcl, idwv Ar)fjLoo-dev7)v ixeipaiaov ovra citizen (Olymp. § 3) — with the thought 

[Schiifer places the birth of Demo- in his mind, perhaps, that if he was 

sthenes in 384]. Dionys. Lys. c. 12, still but a /xeroiKos of Athens he was 

et yap dydorjKovra try yevofxevov drjcret at least a ttoXlttjs of Hellas, 

154 THE ATTIC ORATORS chap, vir 

of his letters. He was a man of warm nature, im- 
pulsive, hospitable, attached to his friends; fond 
of pleasure, and freely indulging in it ; but, like 
Sophocles at the Chian supper-party described by 
Ion, 1 carrying into social life the same intellectual 
quality which marks his best work — the grace and 
the temperate brightness of a thoroughly Athenian 

1 Athenaeus xni. pp. 603 E-604 D. 



An appreciation of Lysias is, in one sense, easy for 
modern criticism. He was a literary artist, and his 
work bears the stamp of consummate literary skill. 
The reader may fail to realise the circumstances 
under which a particular speech was delivered, the 
force with which it appeals to emotion or to reason, 
the degree in which it was likely to prove persuasive 
or convincing. But he cannot fail to be aware 
that he is reading admirable prose. The merit of 
Lysias as a writer is secure of recognition. It is his 
oratorical power which runs some danger of being 
too lightly valued, unless attention is paid to the 
conditions under which it was exerted. The speech 
Against Eratosthenes, indeed, in which he expresses 
the passionate feeling of his own mind, would alone 
suffice to prove him in the modern sense eloquent. 
But a large majority of his other speeches are so 
comparatively tame, so poor in the qualities of the 
higher eloquence, that his oratorical reputation, to 
be understood, needs to be closely interpreted by the 
scope of his oratory. 


Although on a few occasions he himself came 
forward as a speaker, the business of his life was to 
write for others. All sorts of men were among his 
clients ; all kinds of causes in turn occupied him. 
Now he lent his services to the impeachment of an 
official charged with defrauding the Athenian treasury, 
or to the prosecution of some adherent of the Thirty, 
accused of having slandered away the lives of Athenian 
citizens ; now he supplied the words in which a 
pauper begged that his obol a day from the State 
might not be stopped, or helped one of the parties to 
a drunken brawl to demand satisfaction for a black 
eye. The elderly citizen who appeals against the 
calumny of an informer to his past services as trier- 
arch or choregus ; the young man checked on the 
threshold of public life by some enemy's protest at 
his dokimasia for his first office, — in turn borrow 
their eloquence from Lysias. If he had been content 
to adopt the standard which he found existing in his 
profession, he would have written in nearly the same 
style for all these various ages and conditions. He 
would have treated all these different cases upon a 
uniform technical system, merely seeking, in every 
case alike, to obtain the most powerful effect and 
the highest degree of ornament by applying certain 
fixed rules. Lysias was a discoverer when he per- 
ceived that a purveyor of words for others, if he 
would serve his customers in the best way, must 
give the words the air of being their own. He saw 
that the monotonous intensity of the fashionable 
rhetoric — often ludicrously unsuited to the mouth 
into which it was put — was fatal to real impressive- 


ness ; and, instead of lending to all speakers the same 
false brilliancy, he determined to give to each the 
vigour of nature. It was the desire of treating 
appropriately every case entrusted to him, and of 
making each client speak as an intelligent person, 
without professional aid, might be expected to speak 
in certain circumstances, which chiefly determined 
the style of Lysias. 

This style, imitated by many, but marked in L y sias ttie 

^ j j representa- 

Lysias by an original excellence, made him for tive of the 

J J to Plain Style. 

antiquity the representative of a class of orators. 
It was in the latter part of the fourth century B.C. 
that Greek critics began regularly to distinguish three 
styles of rhetorical composition, the grand, the plain 
and the middle. The grand style aims constantly at 
rising above the common idiom : it seeks ornament 
of every kind, and rejects nothing as too artificial if it 
is striking. The plain style may, like the first, employ 
the utmost efforts of art, but the art is concealed ; 
and, instead of avoiding it, imitates the language of 
ordinary life. The "middle" style explains itself by 
its name. Theophrastus appears to have been the 
first writer on Rhetoric who attempted such a classi- 
fication ; there is, at least, no hint of it in Aristotle 
or in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. 1 Vague as the 
classification necessarily is, it was frequently modified 
according to the taste of individual teachers. The 
two extremes — the grand and the plain styles — were 

1 Dionysius, speaking of the third this, Francken infers with great prob- 

or middle style, declares himself un- ability that the distinction between 

able to decide whether it was first the three styles was first made by 

used by Thrasyniachus of Chalcedon, Theophrastus in his lost work ire pi 

u as Theophrastus thinks" or by some Xe^eojs (Commentationcs Lysiacac, p. 

one else : Be Demosth. c. 3. From 9). 


recognised by all ; but some discerned two, 1 some 
three 2 shades between them ; while others thought 
it needless to distinguish anything intermediate, 3 
On the whole, however, the tripartite division kept 
its ground down to Roman times. It was adopted, 
with variations of detail, by Cicero, 4 Dionysius 5 and 
General Quintilian. 6 The characteristics of the " plain" style 
isticsofthe — with which we are most concerned at present — are 
ye ' only sketched by Dionysius; 7 but they are more 
precisely given by Cicero. There is a difference, 
indeed, between the points of view of the two critics. 
Dionysius treats the three styles historically ; Cicero 
treats them theoretically. The " middle " style of 
Cicero differs, therefore, from the " middle " style of 
Dionysius in being an ideal. But Cicero's description 
of the "plain" style, at least, would probably have 

1 Thus Demetrius {irepl epixr\v. e. 4 Cic. Orator \ c. 6, § 20, grandiloqui 
36, Walz, lih. Graec. vol. ix. p. 21) — tenues, acuti — medius ct quasi tem- 
distinguishes four types or x a P aKT VP e $ peratus. 

— the plain (Icrxvbs), the grand 5 Dionysius describes the grand 

(jLL€ya\oTrp€Trrjs), the polished (y\a- style as i^Wayfievi), irepiTTT], iy- 

(pvpos), and the forcible (deivbs) — KardaKevos (De Deruosth. 1), or i^A?? 

meaning by the last a terse, vigorous Ae£ts (ib. 34) : the plain, as Xlttj, 

style, suited to controversy in court d(pe\rjs (ib. 2), or 1<tx v Vj direpiTros 

or council. (ib. 34) : the middle as fiecri} (ib. 34) 

2 Syrianus, in his commentary on or /ullktt] (ib. 3). 

the 7rept ide&v of Hermogenes (Walz, 6 Quint, xn. c. 10, § 58. Umim 

lih. Graec. vol, vn. p. 93), says that subtile (genus), quod lexvbv vocant, 

Hipparchus (a rhetorician who wrote aUerum grande atque robustum, quod 

a treatise irepl rpbirwv, ib. vi. p. 337) ddpbv dicunt, constituunt ; tertium 

recognised five styles — the plain alii medium ex duobus, alii floridum 

(Icrx^os), the copious (ddpbs — another (namque id dvBrjpbv appellant) addide- 

name for the juLeya\oirpeir7)s), the runt. 

middle (/leaos), the graphic (ypcupifcos), 7 Dionys. De Demosth. c. 2, rj 

and the florid (dvdrjpos). erepa \e£is, 77 \lttj Kal d(pe\r)S, Kal 

;i Demetrius says that his y\a<ftvpbs doKovaa KaracrKevrjv re Kal Icrx^ ttjv 

XapcLKTrjp was considered by some as 7rpos ifii&Trjv ex €LV Xbyov Kal opioid- 

a branch of the lax^bs, and his rrjra — a vague description, which 

detvbs x a P aKT VP as a branch of the tells us only that this style is based 

fxeyaXorrpeTrrjS : irepl ep/m. c. 36, Walz, upon ididbrys Xoyos — the language of 

ix. 21. ordinary life. 


been accepted in the main by Dionysius ; and it is 
clear that for Cicero, as for Dionysius, Lysias was 
the canon of that style. According to Cicero, the 
chief marks of the " genus tenue " are these: — 1. In 
regard to composition — a free structure of clauses and 
sentences, not straining after a rhythmical period. 1 
2. In regard to diction — (a) purity, 2 (6) clearness, 8 
(c) propriety. 4 3. Abstemious use of rhetorical 

figures. 5 

With certain exceptions, which will be noticed in Originality 

. . .of Lysias. 

their place, Lysias has these characteristics, and is 
the best representative of the plain style, whether 
viewed historically or in the abstract. That style 
gradually came to be used by almost all writers for 
the ecclesia or the law-courts ; but it w T as Lysias, 
says Dionysius, who "perfected" it, and "brought it 
to the summit of the excellence proper to it." In 
order that the originality of Lysias may not be 
underrated, attention must be given to the precise 
meaning of this statement. It appears to speak of 
him merely as having succeeded better than others in 
a style used by nearly all writers of speeches for the 
law-courts. But what was, in fact, common to him 
and them was this only — the avoidance of decidedly 
poetical ornament and the employment of sober prose. 
This is all that the " plain " style, as opposed to the 

1 Cie. Orator, § 77, Primum igitur 5 ib. § 80, verccunclus erit usus ora- 
cum tanquam e vinculis numerorum toriae quasi supelhctilis. supellex 

eximamus Solutum quiddam sit, est enim quodammodo nostra quae 

nee vagum tamen. est in ornamentis, alia rcrum, alia 

2 ib. § 79, sermo erit purus ct verborimi. 

Latinus. 6 Dionys. De Demosth. c. 2, ere- 

3 ib. dilucide planeque dicetur. \ducre 5' aw-ty ko.1 els axpbv ijyaye tt}s 

4 ib. quid decent circumspiciatur. idias experts Avalas 6 Kecp&Xov, 


" elaborate/' necessarily means. That which he had, 
and which no other had in the same degree, was the 
art of so writing this prose that it should be in 
character with the person who spoke it. Their style 
was monotonously plain ; his was plain too, but it 
was more, it was variously natural. Dionysius shows 
elsewhere that he appreciated to the full the origin- 
ality of Lysias ; but he has hardly brought it out 
with sufficient clearness in the passage which has just 
been noticed. Lysias may, in a general sense, be 
regarded as the perfecter of a style already practised 
by many others ; but it is closer to the truth to call 
him the founder of a new one, and of one in which he 
was never rivalled. 1 

It does not, perhaps, strike the modern mind as 
very remarkable that a man whose business was to 
write speeches for other people should have conceived 
the idea of making the speech appropriate to the 
person. In order to understand why this conception 
was, at the time, a proof of genius, it is necessary to 
remember how rhetoric was then viewed. Prose 
composition in its infancy was a craft, a close profes- 
sion, just as much as poetry. Beside the sacred band 
of " wise " poets stood the small group of experts 
skilled to fashion artistic prose. When a man wished 
for help in a lawsuit he applied, as a matter of course, 

1 The question, "How far is Lysias below. Its general conclusion is that 
the true representative of the genus "In all his writings Lysias must be 
tenue ? " has been exhaustively dis- pronounced, by any judgment not 
cussed by Dr. F. Berbig, in an essay absolutely rigorous, an excellent 
" Ueber das genus dicendi tenue des model of"ffn) plain style;" though 
Redners Lysias" (Gymnasium -pro- both his composition and his lan- 
gram, Ciistrin, 1871 : reviewed in the guage depart from it in certain 
Philologischer Anzeiger, in. 5. p. points. 
252). The essay will be referred to 


if he could afford it, to one of these ; and it was 
equally a matter of course that the speech supplied to 
him should bear the same stamp as others turned out 
by the same machine. There was no pretence of its 
being the work of the speaker, and no expectation, 
therefore, that it should reflect his nature ; a certain 
rhetorical colour, certain recognised forms of argu- 
ment and appeal, were alone looked for. The idea 
of writing for a client so that he should have in court 


the whole advantage of professional aid, and, in 
addition to this, the advantage of appearing to have 
dispensed with it, was not only novel but daring. 
This is what Lysias first undertook to do, and did 

His dramatic purpose — if it may be so called — Had his 
decided the special characteristics of his style. But, f^rid een 
even without this purpose, an instinctive dislike of 3eorel 

exaggeration would of itself have given his style 
some general characteristics, sufficient to distinguish 
it from that of any of his contemporaries. On this 
account we must dissent from a view advanced by 
K. 0. Midler in his History of Greek Literature. 1 
Lysias had, he thinks, two distinct styles at two 
different periods of his life ; the earlier, " forced and 
artificial " ; the later, plain. Midler recognises the 
former in the speech in the Phaedrus, and in the 
Epitaphius. The turning-point was, he conceives, the 
impeachment of Eratosthenes, when " a real feeling 
of pain and anger " in the mind of Lysias gave " a 
more lively and natural flow both to his spirits and 
to his speech." "This occasion" — Midler adds— 

1 A r ol. ii. ]). 143 (transl. Donaldson). 

plain ? 


" convinced Lysias what style of oratory was both 
the most suited to his own character and also least 
likely to fail in producing an effect upon the judges. 75 
Ingenious as the theory is, we have no belief in the 
fact of any such abrupt transition as it supposes. 
That temperate mastery with which Lysias cultivated 
the " plain" style is doubly a marvel if it was only a 
sudden practical experience which weaned him from 
his first love for a forced and artificial rhetoric. 
Converts are not proverbial for discretion ; and the 
exquisite judgment shown by Lysias after his sup- 
posed reformation ought to have prevented its neces- 
sity. Like all his contemporaries, he must, unques- 
tionably, have had his earliest training in the florid 
Sicilian school ; but there is nothing to show that its 
precepts ever took a strong hold upon him ; and there 
is overwhelming reason to believe that a genius of 
the bent of his must very early have thrown off such 
pedantic trammels. It is true that the speech in 
the Phaedrus — assuming its genuineness — is more 
stiffly composed than any of his presumably later 
writing's : but, on the other hand, it is, as Midler 
allows, entirely free from the ornaments of Gorgias. 
As for the Epitaphius, its spuriousness is now a 
generally recognised fact. 1 

Plainness and an easy versatility are, then, the 

general characteristics of Lysias. We propose now to 

Special consider in detail his special characteristics ; speaking 

tZTT first of his style in the narrower sense, his composi- 

his style. tion and Miction; next of his method of handling 


1 See below. 


Cicero, as we have seen, counts among the marks His Com- 
of the " plain " style a free structure of sentences and 

clauses, not straining after a rhythmical period. 1 

Dionysius, speaking of ethopoiia in Lysias, says that 

he composes i: quite simply and plainly, aware that 

ethos is best expressed, not in rhythmical periods, 

but in the lax (or easy) style " (eV rfj SiaXeXv^hyXe^eL). 2 

In another place, however, he praises Lysias for a 

vigour, essential in contests, "which packs thoughts 

closely and brings them out roundly" (o-rpoyyvXcos)' 6 

— that is, in terse periods. Both remarks are just. 

Nothing more strikingly distinguishes Lysias from his 

predecessors and from nearly all his successors than 

the degree in which the structure of his sentences 

varies according to his subject. His speeches may in 

this respect be classified under three heads. First, 

those which are of a distinctly public character ; in 

which the composition is thoroughly rhythmical, and 

which abound with artistic periods, single or combined. 4 

Secondly, those speeches which, from the nature of 

their subjects, blend the private with the public 

character ; which show not only fewer combinations 

or groups of periods, but a less careful formation of 

single periods. 5 Thirdly, the essentially private 

speeches ; which differ from the second class, not in 

the mould of such periods as occur, but in the larger 

1 Cic. Orator, § 77, quoted above. xxviii. (Kara 'EpyoKXeovs) : 3. Or. 

-r.. -r, T XXIX. (Kara QiXoKparovs) : 4. Or. 

2 Dionys. Be Lys. c. 8. K ,\ ' 

J xxxni. (OXvfMTiaKos) : 5. Or. xxxiv. 

lb. c. 0. (ivepl rod julyj KaraXvcrat rr\v Tvokirelav). 
4 In this class, Berbig (in the essay 5 e.g. 1. Or. xil. (Kara 'Eparoade- 

mentioned above " Ueber das genus vovs) : 2. Or. xin. {Kara 'Ayop&rov) : 

dicendi tenue des Redners Lysias," 3. Or. xvi. (/caret $>L\wvos) : 4. Or. 

p. 8) places these speeches: 1. Or. xix. (ire pi r(hv 'Apto-rofpavovs xPV^i- 

XXVII. (/caret 'E7rt/cpdrous) : 2. Or. tojv). 


mixture with these of sentences or clauses not 
periodic. 1 Further, in each of these three classes, a 
greater freedom of composition distinguishes the 
narrative from the argument. The narrative parts of 
the properly public speeches are usually thrown into 
what "may be called the historical as opposed to the 
oratorical period ; that is, the sentences are more 
loosely knit and are drawn out to a greater length. 
According as the speech h^s more of a private character, 
these freer periods are more and more relaxed into a 
simple series (\e^? elpofLevrj) of longer or shorter 
clauses. Yet, while there are so many shades in the 
composition of Lysias, the colour of the whole is 
individual. Isocrates develops period out of period in 
long, luxuriant sequence ; Demosthenes intersperses 
the most finished and most vigorous periods with less 
formally built sentences which relieve them ; Lysias 
binds his periods, by twos or threes at the most, into 
groups always moderate in size but often monotonous 
in form; excelling Isocrates in compactness, but 
yielding to Demosthenes in life. 2 
His Die- The diction of Lysias is distinguished in the first 

tion— its J & # 

purity. place by its purity. This is a quality upon which no 
modern could have pronounced authoritatively, but 

1 In this third class two grades (/cara Aioyelrovos). 
may be distinguished, according to 2 Cf. Dionys. Be Lys. c. 6 ( speak - 

the importance of the subject and ing of the terse periodic style)— ij 

the use, greater or less accordingly, avarpe^ovaa ra vorjfxara Kal arpoy- 

of a periodic style. I. 1. Or. I. (irepl y^Acos iKcpepovaa \et;is, Dionysius 

rod 'Eparoadivovs (povov) : 2. Or. III. says, rair-qv oklyoi fxev ifxifir/aavro, 

(Kara Zl/ulcovos) : 3. Or. IY. {irepl rpav- ArjfjLoadivTjs 8e Kal vwepep&XeTo- 

/ulcltos e/c irpovoias) : 4. Or. VII. (irepl tt\t]u oi>x ovtws evreXQs ovde 

rod <T7]kov). II. 1. Or. XVII. (irepl acpeXuis cbairep Avaias, XPV<^^- 

drifMxriwv x/077/mTWJ' ) : 2. Or. XXIII. /uevos avrrj, d\\a irepiepyws Kal 

(Kara IIayK\ewvos) : 3. Or. XXXII. 7ri/cpws. 


for which the ancient Greek critic Touches. In the 
Augustan age the reaction from florid Asianism to 
Atticism had set in strongly, and especial attention 
was paid by Greek grammarians to the marks of a 
pure Attic style. Dionysius may be taken as a com- 
petent judge. He pronounces Lysias to be " perfectly 
pure in expression, the best canon of Attic speech, — 
not of the old used by Plato and Thueyclides," but of 
that which was in vomie in his own time. 1 This 
may be seen, he adds, by a comparison with the 
writings of Andocides, Critias and many others. Two 
ideas are included under the "purity" praised here : 
abstinence from words either obsolete (yX&o-aai) or 
novel, or too decidedly poetical ; and abstinence from 
constructions foreign to the idiom of the day — an 
excellence defined elsewhere as " accuracy of dialect/' 2 
Lysias is not rigidly pure in these respects. The only 
instance of an old-fashioned syntax, indeed, which 
has been noticed in him, is the occasional use of re as 
a copula ; 3 nor does he use such pedantic words as 
were meant by " glossae " ; but rare or poetical words 
and phrases occur in many places. 4 The praise of 
purity must be taken in a general and relative sense. 
Of those who came after Lysias, Isocrates most nearly 

1 Dionys. Be Lys. c. 2. aofxevos : § 7, oUovvres &7r6p6r)Toi Kal 

2 ib. c. 13, where the "purity" dreix^roL Kal daraaiaaroL /cat dyjr- 
spoken of in c. 2 is defined as con- ttjtol : Or. iv. § 8, ^ Trapufrwifros 
sisting of two elements — to Kada- 6&X €L P ^ iav Kal napoivos eaTiv : § 9, 
pop rCov ovofiaruv and rj aKpi^eia rrjs is rovro ^apvdaifio/tas 7]K€L : § 20. 
dtaXeKTOV. av-QKCffTos vvficpopd : Or. XVIII. § 49, 

3 This use occurs seven times in apxaioirXovros : Or. xm. § 45, dkXeijS 
all: Or. I. § 17 : Xin. §§ 1, 82: yriporpoc^eh : Or. XXVI. § 4, deifivr]- 
XXXI. §§ 1, 5: XXXlL §§ 1, 22. Ber- aros : Or. XXX. § 35, fuaoTrovrfpeiv : 
big, p. 13. Or. xxiv. § 3, dv<JTVXVV aTa taotfai : 

4 e.g. Or. xxxiit. § 3, /uKpoXoyn- Or. xxxili. § 7, dddvaros iXevSepia. 


approached him in this quality ; l but Isaeus is also 
commended for it. 2 
simplicity. Next, in contrast with the Sicilian school of rhe- 
toric, Lysias is characterised by a general avoidance 
of ornamental figures. Such figures as occur are 
mostly of the kind which men use in daily life with- 
out rhetorical consciousness, — hyperbole, metaphor, 
prosopopoiia and the like. 3 As a rule, he expresses his 
meaning by ordinary words employed in their normal 
sense. 4 His panegyrical speeches and his letters are 
said to have presented a few exceptions to this rule ; 
but all his business-works, as Dionysius calls them — 
his speeches for the ecclesia and for the law-courts — 
are stamped with this simplicity. He seems, as his 
critic says, to speak like the ordinary man, while he is 
in fact the most consummate of artists, 5 — a prose poet 
who knows how to oive an unobtrusive distinction to 
common language, and to bring out of it a quiet and 
peculiar music. Isocrates had the same command of 
familiar words, but he was not content to seek effect 
by artistic harmonies of these. His ambition was to 
be ornate ; and hence one of the differences remarked 

1 Dionys. De Lys. c. 2, 'laoKpdTrjs xoWdoe: synathroismus, Or. xxxiit. 
— KadapwTaTos dr] rCbv dWcov fierd ye § 3, /cat... /cat... /cat... /cat : periphrasis, 
Xvaiav. Or. XVIII. § 3, rpoivaiov iardvai, etc. 

2 Dionys. De Isaeo, c. 3. 4 Dionys. De Lys. c. 3 (aperr)) ij 

3 As an instance of a common did rwv Kvpiwv re /cat kolvQiv /cat ev 
prosopopoiia see e.g. Or. XXI. § 8, ovtoj fiecrcp Keifievwv bvojidr^v eKcpepovaa rd 
7rapecTK€vacr{jL€V7)v rpii\py] iroaa oieade voov/bieva. 

...tovs 7ro\€fjdovs eipyaadcu /ca/cd ; ° ib. 6/jlolgjs de rots totwrats dia- 

Other common figures which occur \eyeadat 8okQv irXelarov oaov idubrov 

in Lysias are synecdoche, e.g. Or. dtacpepet. 

XXXIII. § 9, rds eXiridas rrjs awrrj- 6 ib. Kpdriaros iroirjTrjs Xoywv \e- 

pias : antonomasia, Or. § 15, 6 crew- \v/jl€ut]s e'/c fiirpov Xe^ecos, Ibiav nvd 

vbs ^Lreipievs : metonymia, Or. xir. Xoywv evprjK&s dpixoviav^ rj rd ovofiara 

§ 60, rets 7r6Aeis eirdyoi'Tes : epana- Koajxel re /cat i]8\jveL, fnjdev e%ovra 

phora, Or. XXX. § 3, iroXXd \xiv... 6yKLbdes n jj,r]5e (popriKov. 

L YSIA S—S T YLE 1 67 

by Dionysius : Isocrates is sometimes vulgar ; x Lysias 
never is. There is one kind of ornament, however, 
which Lysias uses largely, and in respect to which he 
deserts the character of the plain style. He delights 
in the artistic parallelism (or opposition) of clauses. 
This may be effected: (1) by simple correspondence 
of clauses in length (isokolon) ; (2) by correspondence 
of word with word in meaning (antitheton proper) ; 
(3) by correspondence of word with word in sound 
(paromoion). 2 Examples are very numerous both in 
the public and in the private speeches. This love of 
antithesis — shown on a larger scale in the terse 
periodic composition — is the one thing which some- 
times blemishes the ethos in Lysias. 

Closely connected with this simplicity is his clear- clearness, 
ness. Lysias is clear in a twofold sense : in thought, 
and in expression. Figurative language is often a 
source of confusion of thought ; and the habitual 
avoidance of figures by Lysias is one reason why he 
not only speaks but thinks clearly. In regard to 
this clearness of expression Dionysius has an excellent 
remark. This quality might, he observes, result 
merely from "deficiency of power," i.e. poverty of 
language and of fancy which constrained the speaker 
to be simple. In the case of Lysias it does, in fact, 
result from wealth of the right ivords. 3 He uses only 

1 Dionys. De Isocr. c. 3, crx r )l JLar ' i $ eL Ti/j.wpT]drj(TeTai — Teri/ArjaeTcu : Or. XXX. 

(popTiKws. § 29, rd irarpia — Kara irarepa. 

' 2 Isokola and homoioteleuta con- :i JDe Lys. c. 4, /cat et jiev di 

stantly occur together: see esp. Or. dcrBeveiav dwajuietos iyiyvero to 

xn. (§§1,4, 6, 19,26, 32, 39, etc.) craves ovk a^iov fy avrb dyairav' 

and Or. xxxiii. passim. A special vvv de 6 tt^Kovtos tCov Kvpiwv 

form of the paromoion, viz. parono- ovoiidncv e/c iroWijs avTtp irepiov- 

masia, is frequent in Lysias : e.g. Or. alas airoMKvvrai ravrrju ttjv dperrjv. 
XXXT. § 11, yvib/xr) — <rvyyi>u)/j,7]s : § 24 

1 68 




plain words ; but he has enough of these to express 
with propriety the most complex idea. The combi- 
nation of clearness with conciseness is achieved by 
Lysias because he has his language thoroughly under 
command ; his words are the disciplined servants of 
his thoughts. 1 Isocrates is clear ; but he is not also 
concise. In the union of these two excellences, Isaeus 2 
perhajDS stands next to Lysias. There are, indeed, 
exceptions to the conciseness of Lysias, as there are 
exceptions to the purity and the plainness of his 
diction. Instances occur in which terms nearly 
synonymous are accumulated, either for the sake of 
emphasis or merely for the sake of symmetry ; 8 but 
such instances are not frequent. 

Vividness, evdpyeia — "the power of bringing under 

1 ib. c. 4, ov to?s dvbfiacri dovXevet 
tcl 7rpdy/maTa Trap* avrcp, rols be irpdy- 
[xacnv CLKoKovde? tcl ovofxara. 

2 It is remarkable that Diony- 
sius expressly denies to Demosthe- 
nes the invariable clearness of Lysias, 
De Lys. c. 4, tt}s fiev Qovkv8L8ov 
Ae£eu>s kcli ArjfjLOo-devovs, ot deivorarot 
tc\ Trp&yfJLCLTa e^enrelv eyevovro, 7roXXa 
Sucret/cacrrd ecrriv tj/jllv koX aacKpr). 

3 For emphasis (e.g.) in Or. xiii. 
§ 63, ol 6' clvt&v irepiyevbixevoi 
tcai awdevres, ovs ovros [lev dire- 


Kareyixjoadr), r/ 5e tvxV xal 6 
baifAuv TrepieTroL-qae . . . TLfiCovrai u0' 
vfi&v. For symmetry (e.g.) in Or. 
XXVIII. § 3, kclI yap St] beivbv av 
€lt] el vvv jiev ovtws avrol ine^o- 
jtievoi reus elcrcpopcus o~vyyvdop,rjv 
tois KXewTovai /ecu tols diopo- 
doKOv<TLv 'ex oLTe > ^ v 3e tw rews 


fxeydXwv 6vtlov /cat t£qv bryxoaiwv 
irpocbbuv jmeydXcjv ovcrccv, davd- 
rq} eKoXd^ere rot's t&v v/xerepoju 

iiridvjuLovi'Tas: where, as Blass 
observes, the words /ieydXojv ov- 
(tlov are superfluous, and the phrase 
tovs rujv v/xeTepcou eTriOvfiovvTas, where 
tous tolovtovs would have sufficed, 
is meant to balance toIs KXeirTovvi 
kolI tols dupodoKovcnv. 

Another strong instance of re- 
dundancy of the former kind — the 
emphatic — is Or. xxi. § 24, ovoe- 
7rc67ror' rjXerjcra ov5' edd/epvaa 
ovb' eixvrjadrjv yweuhebs ov8e -rraidcop 
tuju ijuavTov, ovb' 7iyou/Li7)v deivbv 
elvcu el TeXevTrjaas uirep tjjs iraTpi- 
8os opfiavovs kclI tov iraTpbs 
direffTeprjuev ovs clvtovs KCLTaXeixpw. 
Favorinus, according to Gellius (n. 
v.), used to say: — "If you remove 
a single word from a passage of 
Plato, or alter it, however suitably 
to the sense, you will still have taken 
away something from the elegance ; 
if you do so in Lysias, you will have 
taken away something from the 
sense." This praise, as we have 
seen, needs modification. 


the senses what is narrated " 1 — is an attribute of the 
style of Lysias. The dullest hearer cannot fail to 
have before his eyes the scene described, and to fancy 
himself actually in presence of the persons introduced 
as speaking. Lysias derives this graphic force from 
two things : — judicious use of detail, and perception 
of character. A good example of it is his description, 
in the speech Against Eratosthenes, of his own arrest 
by Theognis and Peison. 2 Dionysius ascribes vivid- 
ness as well as clearness, to Isocrates also ; 3 but there 
is perhaps only one passage in the extant work of 
Isocrates which strictly justifies this praise. 4 A 
description may be brilliant without being in the least 
degree graphic. The former quality depends chiefly 
on the glow of the describer's imagination ; the latter 
depends on his truthfulness and skill in grouping 
around the main incident its lesser circumstances. A 
lifelike picture demands the union of fine colouring 
and correct drawing. Isocrates was a brilliant colour- 
ist ; but he was seldom, like Lysias, an accurate 

From this trait we pass naturally to another which Ethopdm. 
has just been mentioned as one of its sources — the 
faculty of seizing and portraying character. Of all 
the gifts of Lysias this is the most distinctive, and is 
the one which had greatest influence upon his style. 
It is a talent which does not admit of definition or 
analysis ; it can be understood only by studying its 
results. It is shown, as Dionysius says, in three 

1 Dionys. De Lys. c. 7, dvva/uis 3 Dc Isocr. c. 2. 

tis imb tcls aiadrjcreLs dyovcra rk 4 The passage in the Aegineticus 

\eybixeva. in which the speaker describes his 

2 In Eratosth. §§ 8-17. care of Thr;isj T loclius : §3 24-27. 


things — thought, diction, and composition ; 1 that is, 
the ideas, the words, and the style in which the 
words are put together, always suit the person to 
whom they are ascribed. 2 There is hardly one of the 
extant speeches of Lysias upon which this peculiar 
power has not left its mark. Many of them, other- 
wise poor in interest, have a permanent artistic value 
as describing, with a few quiet touches, this or that 
type of man. For instance, the Defence which is the 
subject of the Twenty -first Oration is interesting 
solely because it embodies to the life that proud con- 
sciousness of merit with which a citizen who had 
deserved well of the State might confront a calumny. 
In the speech on the Sacred Olive, if the nameless 
accused is not a person for us, he is at least a character 
— the man who shrinks from public prominence of 

1 De Lys. e. 8, rpiCov re ovtojp the 7]6o7roua of Lysias. He meant 

ev oh /cat irepl a rr\v aperty raijrrju the appropriate delineation of eaeli 

<jvnfiefiy)Kev elvai, 8 lclvol as re /cat several character. Surely he says 

Xe^ecos /cat rpirr}s ryjs uvv 9 e crews, so very plainly: Ue Lys. c. 8, ov 

ev diracn rourois avrbv aTrotpaivopiai yap diavoovjievovs fxovov viroriderai 

KaropOovv. X/r^crrd /cat eVtet/c?) /cat /xerpta rovs 

" Francken (Commentationcs Ly- \eyovras, (bare eUovas elvat Soitelv 
siacae, pp. 5-7) thinks it doubt- r(bv rjdobu rovs Xoyovs dXXd /cat 
ful whether by the rjdoTroua of Ly- rrjv Xe^tv dirodldwai rots ijde- 
sias Dionysius meant the appro- <jiv oUelav. Cf. K. 0. M idler, 
priate delineation of each several Hist. Gr. Lit. n. p. 143 (tr. Donald- 
character, or the attribution to all son): — "Lysias distinguished, with 
characters alike of a certain at- the accuracy of a dramatist, be- 
tractive simplicity. Francken in- tween the different characters into 
dines to the latter view. He re- whose mouths he put his speeches, 
fers to cases in which, as he thinks, and made every one, the young and 
Lysias has failed, or has not tried, the old, the rich and the poor, 
to mark individual character, or the educated and the uneducated. 
in which the general stamp of sim- speak according to his quality and 
plicity is exaggerated. The ap- condition: this is what the ancient 
preciation of ethos depends much critics praise under the name of 
upon taste ; it scarcely admits of his Ethopona. The prevalent tone, 
argument. But it is clear to me however, was that of the average 
what Dionysius, at least, meant by man." 


any kind, but who at the same time has a shy pride 
in discharging splendidly all his public duties. 1 The 
injured husband, again, who has taken upon Erato- 
sthenes the extreme vengeance sanctioned by the law, 
is the subject of an indirect portrait, in which home- 
liness is combined with the moral dignity of a citizen 
standing upon his rights." 2 The steady Athenian 
householder of the old type, and the adventurous 
patriot of the new, are sketched in the speech On the 
Property of Aristophanes. 3 The accuser of Diogeiton, 
unwilling to prosecute a relative, but resolved to have 
a shameful wrong redressed; — Diogeiton s mother, 
pleading with him for her sons ; — are pictures all the 
more effective because they have been produced without 
apparent effort. 4 But of all such delineations — and, 
as Dionysius says, no character in Lysias is inartistic- 
ally drawn or lifeless 5 — perhaps the cleverest and 
certainly the most attractive is that of Mantitheus, 
the brilliant young Athenian who is vindicating his 
past ]ife before the Senate. Nowhere is the ethical 
art of Lysias more ably shown than in the ingenuous 
words of apology with which, as by an afterthought, 
Mantitheus concludes his frank and high-spirited 
defence : — 

4i I have understood, Senators, that some people 
are annoyed with me for this too — that I presumed, 
though rather young, to speak in the Assembly. It 
was about my own affairs that I was first compelled 

1 De sacra Olea, §§ 1-3, 30. 4 In Diocjcit. §§ 1-3, 12-17. 

2 De meet. Eratosth. (Or. 1.) §§ r> De Lys. c. 8, d7r\ws yap ovde 
5 ff., 47-50. evpetv SvvafiaL irapa rf prjropL rovrcp 

3 De Aristoph. bonis, §§ 18-23, irpoaunrov ovre avrjdoiroir)Tov oiire 
55-64. d-^vxov. 


to speak in public ; after that, however, I do suspect 
myself of having been more ambitiously inclined than 
I need have been, — partly through thinking of my 
family, who have never ceased to be statesmen, — 
partly because I saw that you (to tell the truth) 
respect none but such men ; so that, seeing this to be 
your opinion, who would not be invited to act and 
speak in behalf of the State ? And besides — why 
should you be vexed with such men ? The judgment 
upon them rests with none but yourselves." 1 
The " pro- The " propriety " which has always been praised 

priety " of . . . 

Lysias. in Lysias depends mainly on this discernment of what 
suits the character of each speaker ; but it includes 
more — it has respect also to the hearers and to the 
subject, and generally to all the circumstances of the 
case, The judge, the ecclesiast, the listener in the 
crowd at a festival are not addressed in the same 
vein ; different excellences of style characterise the 
opening, the narrative, the argument, the final 
appeal." 2 

His It remains to say a few words on the peculiar and 


crowning excellence of Lysias in the province of 
expression, — his famous but inexplicable "charm." 
It is noticeable that while his Roman critics merely 
praise his elegance and polish, regarding it as a simple 
result of his art, 3 the finer sense of his Greek critic 

1 Pro Mantith. §§20, 21. circumstances :— on the one hand, 

2 The distinction between Etho- to the age, quality, occupation, 
poiia and the Propriety praised etc., of the speaker; on the other 
in Lysias will appear from a careful hand, to the cause and to the 
reading of Dionys. De Lys. cc. 8, 9. audience. 

Ethopoii'a is the adaptation of the :t Cic. Brut. § 35, egregie subtilis 

speecli to the intrinsic character seriptor atque clegans : ib. § 285, 

of the speaker. Propriety is the ieiunitas polita, urbana, clegans. 

adaptation of the speech to the Quint, x. 1. 78, subtilis atque eh- 


apprehends a certain nameless grace or charm, which 
cannot be directly traced to art, — which cannot be 
analysed or accounted for : it is something peculiar to 
him, of which all that can be said is that it is there. 
What, asks Dionysius, is the freshness of a beautiful 
face ? What is fine harmony in the movements and 
windings of music ? What is rhythm in the measure- 
ment of times ? As these things baffle definition, so 
does the charm of Lysias. It cannot be taken to 
pieces by reasoning ; it must be seized by a cultivated 
instinct. 1 It is the final criterion of his genuine w T ork. 
"When I am puzzled about one of the speeches 
ascribed to him, and when it is hard for me to find 
the truth by other marks, I have recourse to this 
excellence, as to the last piece on the board. Then, 
if the Graces of Speech seem to me to make the writ- 
ing fair, I count it to be of the soul of Lysias ; and I 
care not to look further into it. But if the stamp of 
the language has no winningness, no loveliness, I am 
chagrined, and suspect that after all the speech is not 
by Lysias ; and I do no more violence to my instinct, 
even though in all else the speech seems to me clever 
and w r ell finished ; believing that to write well, in 
special styles other than this, is given to many men ; 

gans : ix. 4. 17, gratia quae in eo liaec subtilis oratio atque incompta 

maxima est simpllcis atque inaffectati delected, fit enirn quiddam in utro- 

coloris. It must be allowed to que, quo sit vcuustius, seel own ut 

Cicero that lie felt the plainness of apyparcat. 

Lysias to have a charm of its own. 1 Dionys. De Lys. c. 11. Note 

But he did not, like Dionysius, feel the words — t'ls 17 Trap clvt<2 x^P 1 ^ 

this charm to be something inde- kari, j3ov\o/xevois fiadeiv virodeifiriv av 

pendent of the plainness, which eirirrideijeiv XP° 1 'V M-OLKptji kclI /xa/cpa 

could be used as a distinct test of rpLprj, /cat dXoycp irddei tt)v dXo- 

genuine work. See Orator, § 78, netm yov awaa-KeXv aiadrjaiv — "and 

ut mulieres esse dicuntwr nonnullae to train their critical sense by a 

inornatac, quets id ipsum eleceat, sic feeling as instinctive as itself." 


but that to write winningly, gracefully, with loveliness, 
is the gift of Lysias." Y 

A modern reader would be sanguine if he hoped 
to analyse the distinctive charm of Lysias more closely 
than Dionysius found himself able to do. He may be 
content if study by degrees gives him a dim appre- 
hension of something which he believes that he could 
use. as Dionysius used the qualities detected by his 
" instinct," in deciding between the genuine and the 
false. Evidently the same cause which in great mea- 
sure disqualifies a modern for estimating the " purity " 
of the language of Lysias also disqualifies him for 
estimating its charm. This charm may be supposed 
to have consisted partly in a certain felicity of expres- 
sion, — Lysias having a knack of using the word which, 
for some undefinable reason, was felt to be curiously 
right ; partly in a certain essential urbanity, the 
reflection of a nature at once genial and refined. The 
first quality is evidently beyond the sure appreciation 
of a modern ear : the second less so, yet scarcely to be 
estimated with nicety, since here too shades of 
expression are concerned. At best a student of 
Lysias may hope to attain a tolerably true perception 
of what he could not have written : but hardly the 
faculty of rejoicing that he wrote just as he did. 
His treat- Having now noticed the leading characteristics of 

subject- Lysias in regard to form of language, we will consider 
some of his characteristics in the other great depart- 
ment of his art — the treatment of the subject-matter. 
In this the ancient critics distinguished two chief 
elements, Invention and Arrangement. 2 

1 Dionys. Be Lys. c. 11. 2 evpeacs — rdifts : Dionys. De Lys. c. 15. 


L YSIA S—ST YLE 1 7 5 

By "invention" was meant the faculty of dis- invention. 
covering the arguments available in any given cir- 
cumstances ; the art, in short, of making the most 
of a case. Socrates, criticising the speech in the 
Phaedrus, is made to express contempt for the in- 
ventive power of Lysias. 1 Arguments, however, 
which would not pass with a dialectician, might do 
very well for a jury. If Plato found Lysias barren 
of logical resource, Dionysius emphatically praises 
his fertile cleverness in discovering every weapon of 
controversy which the facts of a case could yield to 
the most penetrating search. 12 The latter part of the 
speech against Agoratus may be taken as a good 
example of this exhaustive ingenuity. 3 It is a 
fault, indeed, that there the speaker attempts to 
make too many small points in succession ; and one, 
at least, of these is a curious instance of overdone 
subtlety. 4 

In regard to arrangement, Lysias is distinguished Arrange- 
from all other Greek orators by a uniform simplicity. 
His speeches consist usually of four parts, which 
follow each other in a regular order : j)roem, narra- 
tive, proof, epilogue." In some cases the nature of 
the subject renders a narrative, in the proper sense, 
unnecessary ; in others, the narrative is at the same 
time the proof; in a few, the proem is almost or 
entirely dispensed with. But in no case is there 

1 Plat. Phaedr. pp. 234 e-236 a. members of the same political party. 

- Dionys. Lys. c. 13. * **? ^ ™ T?l \ *™^™f <™- 

yela reaaapa, irpooiixiov, diriyyiois, 
3 In Agorat. §§ 49-90. 

Trio-rets, iiriXoyos : Dionys. Art. 
FJut. x. c. 12. A 
meration is irpooifiLov, 1 
does not hold good as between two tTriXoyos : FJiet. in. !•: 

4 ib. §§ 70-90, in which it is FJiet. x. c. 12. Aristotle's enu- 
argned that the amnesty of 403 meration is irpoolfiiov, irpodejis, it'kttls, 


anything more elaborate than this fourfold partition, 
— and in no ease is the sequence of the parts altered. 
This simple arrangement, contrasting with the mani- 
fold subdivisions which Plato notices as used by the 
rhetoricians of his day, 1 is usually said to have been 
first made by Isocrates. 2 This may be true in the 
sense that it was he who first stated it theoretically. 
In practice, however, it had already been employed 
by Lysias ; and more strictly than by Isocrates him- 
self. 3 The difference between their systems, according 
to Dionysius, is precisely this : — Lysias uses always 
the same simple framework, never interpolating, sub- 
dividing or defining ; 4 Isocrates knows how to break 
the uniformity by transpositions of his own devising, 
or by novel episodes. 5 The same difference, in a 
stronger form, separates Lysias here from his imitator 
in much else, Isaeus. Every kind of artifice is used 
by Isaeus in shifting, subdividing, recombining the 
four rudimentary elements of the speech according to 
the special conditions of the case. 6 It was this ver- 
satile tact in disposing his forces — this generalship/ 
as Dionysius in one place calls it — which chiefly 
procured for Isaeus the reputation of unequalled 
adroitness in fighting a bad cause. s Lysias had con- 
summate literary skill and much acuteness ; but his 

1 Phacdr. pp. 266 E, 267 E. Cf. veadai tt)v djuoeidiav Idicus fJL€Ta(3o\ais 
Arist. Rlict. iv. 13. koI ^€vols eTreicrodiois. 

2 Dionys. Lys. 16 : Sauppe, 0. A. 6 Id - Dc Isac. c. 14. 

II. 224: Cope, Introd. to Arist. 7 tovs 5e diKaaras pair] - 

FJietoric, p. 332. 7 e? » lJc Ime - 3 - 

3 Westermaim (GriecJi. Bcreds. p. * His reputation in this respect 
75) seems to recognise Lysias as the ™ s of a somewhat sinister kind: 

inventor of the fourfold partition. 

fjv 8e irepl clvtov 56^a irapa toIs 

Tore yo7]T€LCLS Kcu a7raT7jS, us beivos 

4 Dion ys. T>c Lys. c. 15. ^ p TexviTedaaL x6yovs iirl tA ^ 

5 Id. Dc Isocr. c. 4, to dLa\a/ii(3d- v-qpoTepa. Dionys. De Isac. 4. 


weapons were better than his plan of campaign ; he 
was not a subtle tactician. " In arranging what he 
has invented he is commonplace, frank, guileless ; " 1 
while Isaeus "plays all manner of ruses upon his 
adversary," 2 Lysias " uses no sort of knavery." a In- 
vention and selection are admirable in him : arrange- 
ment is best studied in his successors. 4 

If we turn from his general plan to his execution 
of its several parts, Lysias will be found to show very 
different degrees of merit in proem, narrative, proof 
and epilogue. 

His proem, or opening, is always excellent, always Proen 
gracefully and accurately appropriate to the matter 
in hand. This inexhaustible fertility of resource calls 
forth the special commendation of Dionysius. "The 
power shown in his proems will appear especially 
marvellous if it is considered that, though he wrote 
not fewer than 200 forensic speeches, there is not one 
in which he is found to have used a preface which is 
not plausible, or which is not closely connected with 
the case. Indeed, he has not twice hit upon the 
same svllo&isms, or twice drifted into the same 
thoughts. Yet even those who have written little 
are found to have had this mischance, — that, I mean, 
of repeating commonplaces ; to say nothing of the 
fact that nearly all of them borrow the prefatory 
remarks of others, and think no shame of doing so." 5 
The opening of the speech against Diogeiton may be 

1 €(Ttlu airepiTTOS tls kcll iXev- 3 ovre yap irpoKaracTKevah [/c.r.X.], 
depos koI airovripos oikovo/itJctcu rd ...ovre reus ctAAcus TOtaurats irav- 
evpedivTa: Dionys. De Lys. c. 15. ovpyiais evpiaKerai xP^P- evos '- De 

2 irpbs top avridiKov diaTTOPT]- Lys. c. 15. 

pevercu, De Isac. c. 3. 4 lb. 5 lb. c. 17. 



cited as an example of a difficult case introduced with 
singular delicacy and tact. 

Narrative. The same kind of cleverness which never fails to 

make a good beginning finds a more important scope 
in the next stage of the speech. In narrative Lysias 
is masterly. His statements of facts are distinguished 
by conciseness, clearness and charm, and by a power 
of producing conviction without apparent effort to 
convince. 1 If these qualities mark almost equally 
some of the narratives in the private orations of 
Demosthenes, 2 it is yet Lysias and not Demosthenes 
to whom Dionysius points as the canon of excellence 
in this kind. 3 He goes so far as to say that he 
believes the rules for narrative given in the current 
rhetorical treatises to have been derived from study 
of models supplied by Lysias. 

Proof. In the third province — that of proof — this supre- 

macy is not maintained. Ehetorical proofs are of 
three kinds: (1) direct logical proofs which appeal 
to the reason ; and indirect moral proofs which appeal 
(2) to the moral sense, and (3) to the feelings. 

In the first sort Lysias is strong both by acuteness 
in discovering, and by judgment in selecting, argu- 
ments. In the second he is effective also ; and suc- 
ceeds, even when he has few facts to go upon, in 
making characters seem attractive or the reverse by 

1 His narratives ttjv tticttlv a/j.a Kadapa /cat aKpipr) /cat aacpij /cat diet. 
\e\r)doTCos (rvveincpepovcnv, Dionys. De tujv Kvpiwv /cat koiv&v 6vo{xcltq)v kclt- 
Lys. c. 18. eaKevaa/meva (bairep tcl Avaiov; and 

2 After comparing an extract goes on to notice other excellences 
from the lost speech of Lysias which both have alike. De DemostJi. 
Against Tisis with an extract from c. 13. 

the speech of Demosthenes Against :} opov re /cat navova rrjs Ideas ratfr^s 

Conon, Dionysius asks — ravra ov avrbv aVo^atVo/xat : Dc Lys. e. IS. 


incidental touches. In the third he is comparatively 
weak ; he cannot heighten the force of a plea, repre- 
sent a wrong, or invoke compassion, 1 with sufficient 
spirit and intensity. Hence in the fourth and last Epilogue. 
department, the epilogue, he shows, indeed, the neat- 
ness which suits recapitulation, but not the power 
which ought to elevate an appeal. The nature of his 
progress through a speech is well described by an 
image which his Greek critic employs. 2 Like a soft 
southern breeze, his facile inspiration wafts him 
smoothly through the first and second stages of his 
voyage ; at the third it droops ; in the last it dies. 

The manner in which Lysias handles his subject- 
matter has now been spoken of so far as concerns its 
technical aspect. But, besides these characteristics 
of the artist which may be discovered in particular 
parts, there are certain general qualities, resulting 
from the character of the man, which colour the 
whole ; and a word must now be said of these. 

Foremost among such qualities is tact. One of The tact 
its special manifestations is quick sympathy with the 
character of the speaker ; another is perception of the 
style in which a certain subject should be treated 
or a certain class of hearers addressed. Both these 
have already been noticed. But, above and beyond 
these, there is a certain sureness in the whole conduct 
of a case, a certain remoteness from liability to 

1 In tlie technical language of diTjyrjaeus avrbv dyer orav de els 
Dionysius, Lysias understands ovre rovs dirooeLKTLKovs eXdy Xoyovs, 
au^rjcreis ovre deivcbaeLS ovre djivbpd tls ylyverai kclI dcrdeyrjs' h 
olktovs: De Lys, c. 19. de drj rots iradriTiKOLs els reXos dwo- 

2 avrrj fxevroL (7/ xdjots), Kaddirep ufievvvrai : Dionys. De Demosth. c. 

VQTLQS TLS adp<X, /Xe%pt irpOOL/JLLOV kcu 13. 


blunder, which is the most general indication of 
the tact of Lysias. Among his genuine extant 
speeches there is only one which perhaps in some 
degree offers an exception to the rule : — the speech 
Against Evandrus. 1 In the case of the speech Against 
Andocides, the conspicuous absence of a fine dis- 
cretion is one of the most conclusive proofs that 
Lysias was not the author. 2 In relation to treatment, 
this tact is precisely what the ''charm" praised by 
Dionysius is in relation to language; it is that quality, 
the presence or absence of which is the best general 
criterion of what Lysias did or did not write. 
His A quality which the last almost implies is humour; 

and this Lysias certainly had. The description of an 
incorrigible borrower, in the fragment of the lost 
speech against the Socratic Aeschines, shows this 
humour tending to broad farce, 3 and illustrates what 
Demetrius means by the "somewhat comic graces" 4 

1 See the remarks below upon this to take others at a distance ? When- 

speech. ever he has collected club-subscrip- 

- The internal evidence against the tions, he fails to hand over the 

authenticity of the speech Against payments of the other members. 

Andocides is discussed below. and they are wrecked on this little 

3 Fragment 1 in Sauppe, 0. A. tradesman like chariots at the turn- 

ii. p. 172. The passage especially ing-post of the course. Such a 

meant here begins at d\\a yap, u> crowd goes at daybreak to his 

avdpes diKacrTal, ovk els e/xe {x'ovov house to demand the sums due to 

tolovtos i<TTiv, and goes down to r) them, that passers-by fancy the 

tovtix) av/uij3d\\€Lu : — people have come to attend a 

" But indeed, judges, I am not the funeral. As for the inhabitants of 

only person to whom he behaves in the Peiraeus, they are in such a 

this way ; he is the same to every mind that they think it much safer 

one else who has had to do with to sail to the Adriatic than to en- 

him. Have not the neighbouring counter this man." 
shopkeepers, from whom he gets on 4 Demetr. ire pi epnr)veias, § 128 

credit goods for which lie never pays, (AYalz, Ilhet. Gr. ix. 58) : rCov bk 

shut up their shops and gone to law x a P LTLCV at ^ v ^ ffl ^i'goves /cat cre/z- 

with him 1 Are not his neighbours vorepcu, at 8e evreXets /mdWov /cat 

so cruelly used by him that they KajfjuKwrepai, olov al 'Apio-Tort- 

have left their houses and are trying Xovs x&P LTe s K & L ^ucppovos /cat Av<riov. 

L YSIA S—S T YLE 1 8 1 

of Lysias. But, as a rule, it is seen only in sudden 
touches, which amuse chiefly because they surprise ; 
as in the speech for Mantitheus, and most of all in 
that for the Invalid. 1 Really powerful sarcasm must Sarcasm. 
come from earnest feeling ; and Lysias, though intel- 
lectual acuteness gave him command of irony, was 
weak in sarcasm for the same reason that he was not 
great in pathos. There is, properly speaking, only 
one extant speech — that against Nicomachus — in 
which sarcasm is a principal weapon. 2 Here he is 
moderately successful, but not in the best way ; 
for, just as in his attack upon Aeschines, vehemence, 
tending to coarseness, takes the place of moral in- 

The language, the method, the genius of Lysias Defects of 
have now been considered in reference to their chief im orator. 
positive characteristics. But no attempt to estimate 
what Lysias w r as would be true or complete if it failed 
to point out what he was not. However high the 
rank which, he may claim as a literary artist, he 
cannot, as an orator, take the highest. The defects 
which exclude him from it are chiefly two ; and 
these are to a certain extent the defects of his 
qualities. As he excelled in analysis of character 
and in elegance, so he was, as a rule, deficient in 
pathos and in fire. 

It would be untrue to say that Lysias never The limits 
appeals to the feelings with enect, and unlair to in Lysias. 
assume that he lacked the power of appealing to 
them with force. But the bent of his mind was 

] e.g. InMantith. (Or. xvi.)§15: 2 See esp. In Xicom, (Or. xxx.) 

Pro lived. (Or. xxiv.) § 9. Cf. De §§ 11, 27. 
sacra 01 ea (Or. vn.) §§ 1, 14. 


critical; his artistic instinct shrank from exaggera- 
tion of every sort; and, instead of giving fervent 
expression to his own sense of what was pitiable 
or terrible in any set of circumstances, it was his 
manner merely to draw a suggestive picture of the 
circumstances themselves. This self-restraint will be 
best understood by comparing a passage of Lysias 
with a similar passage of Anclocides. The speech On 
the Mysteries describes the scene in the prison when 
mothers, sisters, wives came to visit the victims of 
the informer Diocleides. 1 A like scene is described in 
the speech Against Agoratus, when the persons whom 
he had denounced took farewell in prison of their 
kinswomen. 2 But the two orators take different 
means of producing a tragic effect. " There were 
cries and lamentations," says Anclocides, " weeping and 
wailing for the miseries of the hour." 3 Lysias simply 
remarks that the wife who came to see her husband 
had already put on mourning. 4 For hearers of a 
certain class the pathos of facts is more eloquent than 
an express appeal ; but the speaker who is content 
to rely upon it renounces the hope of being found 
pathetic by the multitude. It was only now and 
then that, without going beyond the limits which his 
own taste imposed, Lysias could expect to stir general 
sympathy. In the defence which he wrote for the 
nephews of Nicias, the last survivors of a house made 
desolate by violent deaths and now threatened with 
spoliation, he found such an opportunity. He used 
it well, because, though declamation would have been 

1 Andoc. Be MysL §§ 48-51. 3 Be Myst, § 48. 

2 Lys. In Agorat. §§ 39-42. 4 In Agorat. § 40. 


easy, lie abstained from everything rhetorical and 
hollow. The few words in which the defendant 
speaks of his claim to the protection of the court are 
plain and dignified : — 

"Judges, I have no one to put up to plead for us ; 
for of our kinsmen some have died in war, after 
showing themselves brave men, in the effort to make 
Athens great ; some, in the cause of the democracy 
and of your freedom, have died by the hemlock of 
the Thirty ; and so the merits of our kinsmen, and 
the misfortunes of the State, have become the causes 
of our friencllessness. It befits you to think of these 
things and to help us with good will, considering 
that under a democracy those deserve to be well 
treated at your hands who, under an oligarchy, had 
their share of the troubles." 1 

After inquiring how far Lysias fails in pathos, it The 
remains to speak of the other principal defect noticed of°Lysi!it 
above. How far, and in what sense, does he want sfona 5 te Pas " 
fire ? By " fire " is meant here the passion of a 
speaker stirred with great ideas. Dionysius says (in 
effect) that, besides pathos, Lysias wants two other 
things, grandeur and spirit. 2 He has not — we are 
told — the intensity or the force 3 of Demosthenes ; he 
touches, but does not pierce, the heart ; 4 he charms, 
but fails to astonish or to appal. 5 This is true ; 
but it should be remembered that in a great majority 
of the causes with which he had to deal the attempt 

1 De bonis Nitiae fratri-s (Or. 3 rovos— l<xx^ • Dionys. Demosth. 
xviii.) §§24, 25. 13. 

2 Dionysius says that the style 4 He wants to -rnnpov : id. Lys. 
of Lysias is not vxprfkr] and ixeyaKo- 13. 

TTpewris : nor dv/jLov kclI irvev/xaros 5 His style being neither Oav/iaarig 

fxeo-TT] : De Lys. c. 13. nor KarairX^KTiKr} : ib. 


at sublimity would have been ridiculous. It may be 
granted that, had Lysias been called upon to plead 
for Olynthus or to denounce Philip, he would not 
have approached even distantly the lofty vehemence 
of Demosthenes. The absence of passion cannot 
properly be regarded as a defect in his extant 
speeches ; but they at least suggest that under no 
circumstances could he have excelled in passionate 
eloquence. They indicate a power which sufficed to 
elaborate them, rather than a power which gave them 
their special qualities out of an affluence of resource. 
Two speeches, however, must be named, one of which 
shows (in what remains of it) the inspiration of a 
great idea, the other, the inspiration of an ardent 
feeling. These are the Olympiacus and the speech 
Against Eratosthenes. If in each of these Lysias has 
shown himself worthy of his subject, the inference in 
his favour should be strengthened by the fact that, so 
far as we know, these are the noblest subjects which 
he treated. 

In the Olympiacus he is enforcing the necessity 
of union among Greeks and calling upon Sparta to 
take the lead : — 

" It befits us, then, to desist from war among 
ourselves and to cleave, with a single purpose, to the 
public weal, ashamed for the past and apprehensive 
for the future ; it befits us to imitate our forefathers, 
who, when the barbarians coveted the land of others, 
inflicted upon them the loss of their own; and who, 
after driving out the tyrants, established liberty for 
all men alike. But I wonder most of all at the 
Lacedaemonians, and at the policy which can induce 


them to view passively the conflagration of Greece. 
They are the leaders of the Greeks, as they deserve 
to be, both for their inborn gallantry and for their 
warlike science ; they alone dwell exempt from 
ravage, though unsheltered by walls ; unvexed by 
faction ; strangers to defeat ; with usages which never 
vary ; thus warranting the hope that the freedom 
which they have achieved is immortal, and that, 
having proved themselves in past perils the de- 
liverers of Greece, they are now thoughtful for her 
future.' 7 1 

In the speech Against Eratosthenes, he concludes 
the impeachment with an appeal to the two parties 
who had alike suffered from the Thirty Tyrants : — the 
Townsmen, or those who had remained at Athens 
under the oligarchy ; and the democratic exiles who 
had held the Peiraeus : — 

" I wish, before I go down, to recall a few things 
to the recollection of both parties, the party of the 
Town and the party of the Peiraeus ; in order that, in 
passing sentence, you may have before you as warn- 
ings the calamities which have come upon you through 
these men. 

"And you, first, of the Town — reflect that under 
their iron rule you were forced to wage with brothers, 
with sons, with citizens a war of such a sort that, 
having been vanquished, you are the equals of the 
conquerors, whereas, had you conquered, you w^ould 
have been the slaves of the Tyrants. They w r ould 
have gained wealth for their own houses from the 
administration ; you have impoverished yours in the 

1 Objmpiacus (Or. xxxiii.) §§ 6, 7. 


war with one another ; for they did not deign that 
you should thrive along with them, though they forced 
you to become odious in their company ; such being 
their consummate arrogance that, instead of seeking 
to win your loyalty by giving you partnership in 
their prizes, they fancied themselves friendly if they 
allowed you a share of their dishonours. Now, there- 
fore, that you are in security, take vengeance to the 
utmost of your power both for yourselves and for the 
men of the Peiraeus ; reflecting that these men, 
villains that they are, were your masters, but that 
now good men are your fellow-citizens, — your fellow- 
soldiers against the enemy, your fellow-counsellors in 
the interest of the State ; remembering, too, those 
allies whom these men posted on the acropolis as 
sentinels over their despotism and your servitude. 
To you — though much more might be said — I say 
thus much only. 

"But you of the Peiraeus — think, in the first 
place, of your arms — think how, after fighting many 
a battle on foreign soil, you were stripped of those 
arms, not by the enemy, but by these men in time of 
peace ; think, next, how you were warned by public 
criers from the city bequeathed to you by your 
fathers, and how your surrender was demanded of the 
cities in which you were exiles. Eesent these things 
as you resented them in banishment ; and recollect, 
at the same time, the other evils that you have 
suffered at their hands ; — how some were snatched 
out of the market-place or from temples and put to a 
violent death ; how others were torn from children, 
parents, or wife, and forced to become their own 


murderers, nor allowed the common decencies of 
burial, by men who believed their own empire to be 
surer than the vengeance from on high. 

"And you, the remnant who escaped death, after 
perils in many places, after wanderings to many cities 
and expulsion from all, beggared of the necessaries of 
life, parted from children, left in a fatherland which 
was hostile or in the land of strangers, came through 
many obstacles to the Peiraeus. Dangers many and 
great confronted you ; but you proved yourselves 
brave men ; you freed some, you restored others to 
their country. 

" Had you been unfortunate and missed those 
aims, you yourselves would now be exiles, in fear of 
suffering what you suffered before. Owing to the 
character of these men, neither temples nor altars, 
which even in the sight of evil-doers have a protect- 
ing virtue, would have availed you against wrong ; — 
while those of your children who are here would have 
been enduring the outrages of these men, and those 
who are in a foreign land, in the absence of all 
succour, would, for the smallest debt, have been 

"I do not wish, however, to speak of what might 
have been, seeing that what these men have done 
is beyond my power to tell ; and indeed it is 
a task not for one accuser, or for two, but for a 

"Yet is my indignation perfect for the temples 
which these men bartered away or defiled by entering 
them ; for the city which they humbled ; for the 
arsenals which they dismantled ; for the dead, whom 


you, since you could not rescue them alive, must 
vindicate in their death. And I think that they are 
listening to us, and will be aware of you when you 
give your verdict, deeming that such as absolve these 
men have passed sentence upon them, and that such 
as exact retribution from these have taken vengeance 


in their names. 

" I will cease accusing. You have heard — seen — 
suffered : you have them : judge," 1 
Place of On reviewing the general position of Lysias among 

the history the Attic orators, it will be seen to result mainly 
one. £ rom |^ s (Ji SCO y ei y ? made at a time when Rhetoric 
had not yet outlived the crudest taste for finery, that 
the most complete art is that which hides itself. 
Aided not only by a delicate mastery of language 
but by a peculiar gift for reading and expressing 
character, he created a style of which the chief mark 
was various naturalness. It was Ions; before the art 
of speaking reached, in general practice, that sober 
maturity which his precocious tact had given to it in 
a limited field ; it was long before his successors freed 
themselves to any great extent — few wholly freed 
themselves — from the well-worn allurements which 
he had decisively rejected when they were freshest. 
But at least no one of those who came after dared to 
neglect the lesson taught by Lysias ; the attempt to 
be natural, however artificially or rarely, was hence- 
forward a new element in the task which professors 
of eloquence conceived to be set before them. Lysias 
remains, for all after-times, the master of the plain 

1 In Eratosth. §§ 92-100. 



This supremacy in a definite province is allowed 
to him by the general voice of antiquity through the 
centuries in which its culture was finest ; the praise 
becoming, however, less discriminating as the instinct 
which directed it became less sure. 

Plato's satire x upon Lysias — for not having seen 
that the writing of love-letters is a branch of Dialectic 
— is joined to a notice of the clearness, compactness, 
finished polish of his language ; 2 and it would per- 
haps be unfair to Plato to assume that in the one 
place where he seems at all just to Lysias he meant 
to be altogether ironical. Isaeus was a careful student 
of Lysias. 3 If Aristotle 4 seldom quoted him, if Theo- 






1 Plat, rhacdr. p. 264 B : ov 
XL'dw Soku (3€{3\rjcrdcu tc\ tov \6yov ; 
1) (paiverai to devrepov elpyixevov e/c 
tlvos av ay kyjs dew devrepov reOrjvai ; 
It is on this ground — the unpliilo- 
sophic character of Lysias — that 
Plato gives such a decided prefer- 
ence to Isoerates. Compare the 
remark of Dionysius that Isaeus 
differs from Lysias in this among 
other things — tw /ultj holt evdvp-y^a 
tl \eyeiv dXXd /cat /car' eirLxeiprjiia 
{De Is. 16). That is, Isaeus fre- 
quently makes an attempt (eiu- 
Xeip7]/^a) at strict logical proof ; 
whereas Lysias rarely goes beyond 
the rhetorical syllogism (ev6vjarjp.a). 

- Phaeclr. p. 234 e : ri de ; /cat 
ravrr) del tov \6yov eTraivedrjvai, (Jos 
ra deovra elpyKoros rod iroirjrov, dXX' 
ovk eKeivy jiovov, otl aacpy /cat arpoy- 
Y^Xa, /cat d/cpt/3a)s e/cacrra tCov bvo- 
/uAtcov diroTeTopv evraL ; 

3 Dionys. Be Is. 2: [Pint.] Vit. 
. Isae. 

4 In the extant works of Aristotle 
there occur but two quotations from 
authentic speeches of Lysias : (1) In 

Ilhct. in. ad fin. e'iprjKa, aKTjKoare, 
e'xere, Kplvare : cited as an example 
of effective asyndeton. This is 
probably an inaccurate citation of 
the aK-qKoare, etopd/care, ireTrbvdare, 
e'xere, dcKa^eTe with which the speech 
Against Eratosthenes closes. (2) 
In Met. 11. c. 23, § 18, there 
is a quotation from § 11 of the 
speech of Lysias irepl rys tto\l- 
Teias (Or. XXXIV.): el (pevyovres 
[lev efJ.axojJ.eda ottoos KareXdufiev, 
KaTe\dbvres de <f>ev^6/j.eda ottoos fiy 

The citation in Met. in. c. 10, 

§ 7 (5 LOT l d^LOV 7}V eivl Tip TCLCpCp 

crvyKaTadaTTTOfxevris rrj apery avrCov 
ttjs eXevdepias) from § 60 of the 
iiriT&cpLos ascribed to Lysias (Or. 
11.) cannot be reckoned, since that 
speech is unquestionably spurious. 
Blass remarks that the words quoted 
by Demetrius ("zrept epji. § 28) from 
a lost work of Aristotle ire pi 8iKaio- 
avvys resemble what we read in 
§ 39 of the speech Against Erato- 
sthenes. (Alt. Bcreds. p. 377, note 



phrastus 1 appears to have missed, and Demetrius 2 to 
have underrated his peculiar merits, one of the first 
orators of their generation, Deinarchus, 3 often took 
him for a model. When the taste for Attic simplicity, 
lost during two centuries in the schools of Asia, 
revived at Eome, Lysias was recognised as its truest 
representative. Though most of his Eoman imitators 
appear to have become feeble in seeking to be plain, 
one of them, Licinius Calvus, is allowed at least the 
praise of elegance. 4 Cicero's criticism of Lysias is not 
close ; it does not analyse with any exactness the 
special qualities of his style ; but the general apprecia- 
tion which it shows is just. For Cicero, Lysias is the 
model, not of a plain style merely, but of Attic 
refinement; 5 he has also the highest degree of 

1 Dionysius expresses indignant 
astonishment at the assertion of 
Theophrastus (iv rols ire pi \e£eus) 
that Lysias had a taste for vulgar 
redundancy of ornament ((popriKuv 
ko\ irepiepywv avrbv otercu fyXwrrjv 
yevcadcu \6ycov). Moderns may 
share this surprise, when they find 
that Theophrastus referred in sup- 
port of his opinion to a speech 
.said to have been composed by 
Lysias for the captive general Kicias. 
The few words quoted by Theo- 
phrastus suffice to indicate the work 
of a third-rate rhetorician: see 
above, p. 145. Cf. Sauppe's re- 
marks on the fragment, 0. A. 11. 
p. 199. 

2 In a passage of the irepl epfirj- 
veias (§ 128) already noticed, the 
epithets which Demetrius gives to 
the "graces" of Lysias are evreXeh 
— Kco/jLLKcbrepaL. It is significant that 
Demetrius should have mistaken 
d<ptXeia for evreXeia, |)lainness for 
paltriness. He lived at the time 
when Greek eloquence, in the first 

stage of its decline, was beginning 
to affect the tawdry ornament of 
the Khodian school. (See "Western] . 
Griceh. Bereds. p. 165.) 

;5 Dionysius names certain speeches 
of Deinarchus as bearing especially 
the Avcticlkos x a P aKT VP- Hypereides 
and (of course) Demosthenes were 
the two other masters by whom 
Deinarchus was chiefly influenced. 
(Dionys. De Dcin. c. 5.) 

Among the less eminent imitators 
of Lysias who belonged nearly to 
the age of Deinarchus, Cicero names 
Charisius and Hegesias of Magnesia 
(Brut. § 286 : Orator, § 226). 

4 Cic. Brutus, § 283, Accuratiu* 
qiwddam dicendi et exqiiisitius affcre- 
bat genus. He treated this style 
scienter eleganterquc, though with a 
certain self-conscious and overwrought 
care which deprived it of freshness and 

5 De Oratore, in. 7, § 28, Suavitatem 
Isocrates, subtilitatem Lysias, acumen 
Hypcrides, sonitum Aeschines, mm 
Demosthenes habuit. Compare Orcdor, 


vigour ; l and though grandeur was seldom possible in 
the treatment of such subjects as he chose, some pass- 
ages of his speeches have elevation. 2 Yet, while 
Demosthenes could use the simplicity of Lysias, it is 
doubtful (Cicero thinks) whether Lysias could ever 
have risen to the height of Demosthenes ; 3 Lysias 
is " almost" a second Demosthenes/ or, what is the 
same thing, " almost" a perfect orator; 5 but his 
mastery is limited to a province. The Augustan age 
produced by far the best and fullest of known ancient 
criticisms upon Lysias, that of Dionysius. 6 The 
verdict of Caecilius has perished with his work on the 
Ten Orators ; but the remark preserved from it, that 
Lysias was abler in the invention than in the arrange- 
ment of arguments, 7 shows discernment. This quality 
marks in a less degree the judgments of subsequent 
writers. Quintilian s only commends Lysias in general 
terms for plain elegance of language and mastery of 

§ 29, intelligamus hoc esse Atticum in 5 Brutus, § 35, Quern iam projje 

Lysia, non quod tenuis sit atque inor- audeas orator em pcifectum dicer e ; 

natus, sed quod nihil habeat insolens nam 'plane quidem perfection, et cut 

aut incptum. nihil admodum desit, Demosthenem 

1 Brutus, § 64, Quanquam in Lysia facile dixeris. 
saepe sunt etiam lacerti, ita sic ut 6 Besides the special essay on 

fieri nihil possit valentius. L y sias > and the short notice in the 

KpiGLs apx^iwv, v. 1, there is much 

2 De opt. gen. Oratorum, § 9, Est 
cnim {Lysias) multis locis grandior ; 
sed quia et privatas ille plerasque et 

criticism upon him in the essays 
upon Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes 
and Deinarchus. It is necessary to 

eas ipsas aliis et parvarum rerum . . .,1,1 

, ..,.-,, . . . study these in connexion with the 

caussulas scripsit, videturesse ieiunior. 
quom se ipse consulto ad minutarurn 
genera caussarum limaverit. 

essay on Lysias ; they explain, or 
limit, many statements found there. 
7 The criticism is cited, and con- 

3 io. §10, Ita fit ut Demosthenes ccrte tested, by Photius, p. 489 b, quoted 
possit summisse dicere, elate Lysias below. 

fortasse non possit. 8 Q u i n t. ix. 4. 16: x. 1. 78 (Lysias) 

4 Orator, % 226, Lysiam — dlterum ...quo nihil, si orator i satis est docere, 
paenc Demosthenem. quaeras perfectius. 


clear exposition ; Hermogenes l especially praises, not 
his winningness, but his hidden force, classing him, 
with Isaeus and Hypereides, next to Demosthenes in 
political eloquence. Photius 2 goes wide of the mark ; 
he praises Lysias for those things in which he was 
relatively weak, pathos and sublime intensity ; and 
disputes the just observation of Caecilius that Lysias 
excelled in invention rather than in arrangement. 
Lysias A few words will be enough to mark the broad 

and his 

Successors, differences between Lysias and those three' of his 
successors who may best be compared with him, — 
Isaeus, Isocrates and Demosthenes. Isocrates, like 
Lysias, has purity of diction and accuracy of idiom ; 
command of plain language (though he is seldom 
content with it) ; power of describing, though not of 
dramatising, character ; propriety and persuasiveness. 
But while Lysias hides his art in order to be more 
winning, Isocrates aims openly at the highest artificial 
ornament, and escapes being frivolous or frigid only 
by the greatness of most of his subjects and the 
earnestness with which he treats them. Isaeus, a 
direct student of Lysias, resembles him most in his 
diction, which is not only, like that of Isocrates, clear 
and pure, but concise also ; further, he strives, like 

1 In the irepl Idewv, u. c. 41, Her- - Photius, cod. 262 : ecm be 6 Av- 

mogenes ranks Lysias, with Isaeus alas beivbs juev irad^vaddai, e-rn- 

and Hypereides, next to Demosthenes rrjdeios oe tovs rrpbs av^-qcnv biadel- 

in mastery of the ttoXltlkos \byos. vai \byovs.~Id. p. 489 b. 13: Kcu- 

In his chapter irepl 5<elv6tt)tos (Trepl Id. kIXlos 5e dpLaprdvei evperiKov piev rbv 

II. 9) he says that there are three dvdpa ecirep aWov rivd avvonoXoyQv. 

kinds of 8eiv6TT]s — that which is and ocKovofxijcraL be rd evpedevra oi% ovrco? 

seems, that which seems and is not, iaivov' kqX yap Kav rourcp rep fxepet rvi 

and that which is but does not seem. dperrjs rod \6yov ovbevbs bpdrai 

The last, or hidden, beivbrr^s is, he Karadeearepos — injudicious praise 

thinks, most perfectly exemplified in indeed. 

L YSIA S—S T YLE 1 93 

his master, to conceal his art, but never quite 
succeeds in this. The excellence of Demosthenes 
comprises that of Lysias, since, while the latter is 
natural by art, the former is so by the necessary 
sincerity of genius ; but Demosthenes is not, like 
Lysias, plain ; nor has he the same delicate charm ; 
grandeur and irresistible power take its place. 

Lastly — it should be remembered that it is not Services of 

Lysias to 

only as an orator but also, and even more, as a writer the prose 

, . idiom. 

that Lysias is important ; that, great as were his ser- 
vices to the theory and practice of eloquence, he did 
greater service still to the Greek language. He 
brought the everyday idiom into a closer relation 
than it had ever before had with the literary idiom, 
and set the first example of perfect elegance joined to 
plainness ; deserving the praise that, as in fineness of 
ethical portraiture he is the Sophocles, in delicate 
control of thoroughly idiomatic speech he is the 
Euripides of Attic prose. 

vol. 1 



The Extant Collection, — Epideictic and 
Deliberative Speeches 

The Plutarchic biographer of Lysias says: — "425 
compositions pass under his name ; of which 233 are 
pronounced genuine by Dionysius and Caecilius." 1 
The precise number 233 was probably given by 
Dionysius or Caecilius, not by both ; but it may be 
taken as representing roughly the proportion of 
genuine to spurious allowed by the Augustan Atti- 
cists. It is not difficult to understand how the list 
of works attributed to Lysias had become so large 
and so inaccurate. His fertility was known to have 
been great ; his style was distinguished less by any 
salient features than by marks needing for their 
recognition a finer sense, especially an instinct for the 

1 [Plut.] Vit. Lys. <pepovrcu <T clvtov term \6yoi is to be understood as 

Xoyot rerpaKocrioi eiKoat Trevre' totutujv including Letters: Cf. Dionys. de 

yvrjaiovs <pacrlv oi irepl Aiovvaiov /cat Lys. 1, ypdxpas \6yovs els diKacrrypLa 

KaiKi\ioi> elvai dtaKocriovs rpiaKovra. ...7rpbs de tovtols ... eTriardKiKovs. — 

Pliotius, in his transcript of the Suidas (s, v. Avaias) says Xoyot <5' 

passage (cod. 262), has diaKoalovs avTovXeyovraiehaiyvrjcrioivTrepTovs r' 

TpL&Kovra rpete: and probably rpeis is (300) perhaps a mere slip for a 1 — 

to be replaced in [Plut.]. The general (200). 

chap, ix LYSIAS— WORKS 195 

niceties of Attic idiom ; and it was not until the 
Attic revival under Augustus that such an instinct, 
dead during two centuries, was brought back to an 
artificial life. Meanwhile the grammarians of Per- 
gamus and Alexandria, presuming on the reputation 
of Lysias for industry, had probably been lavish in 
ascribing to him such anonymous forensic speeches as 
bore the general stamp of the " plain " style. 

Thirty-four speeches, entire, or represented by Proportion 

.of Extant 

large fragments, are extant under the name 01 Lysias. to Lost 
A hundred and twenty-seven lost speeches are known 
from smaller fragments or by their titles. Three 
letters, cited by grammarians, are identified by the 
names of the persons to whom they were addressed. 
If to this list is added the disputed Eroticus in Plato's 
Phaedrus, 165 of the 425 compositions mentioned in 
the Plutarchic Life have been accounted for; 260 
remain unknown. 1 

Of the 34 speeches now usually reckoned as Condition 
extant, three are mere fragments, though large frag- Extant 
ments, preserved by Dionysius alone, and printed 
with the rest only in the more recent editions of 
Lysias. These are Nos. xxxn. (Against Diogeiton) ; 
xxxni. (Olympiacus) ; xxxiv. (Defence of the Con- 
stitution). Of the other 31 speeches eight are more 
or less mutilated. In the first place an entire quater- 
nion (eight pages), and three pages of another, are 
wanting in the Palatine MS. The lost quaternion 
contained the end of Or. xxv. (Defence on a Charge 
of abolishing the Commonwealth), the speech Against 

1 For the titles and fragments of 170-210. Blass reckons 170 (instead 
the 127 lost speeches, and of the of 165) compositions known by name : 
letters, see Sauppe, Or. Att. 11. pp. Att. Bercds. pp. 348-365, 


Nicides, and the beginning of Or. xxvi. (Against 
Evandrus). The imperfect quaternion contained on 
its first two pages the end of Or. v. (For Callias), and 
the beginning of Or. vi. (Against Andocides) ; on its 
last page, a passage in Or. vi. corresponding to the 
lacuna in § 49 after avranroSov^. In the next place 
the archetype of the Palatine MS. itself was defective. 
The gaps are at the beginning of Or. iv. (On Wound- 
ing with Intent) ; at the end of Or. xvn. (On the 
Property of Eraton) ; at the beginning of Or. xviii. 
(On the Property of Eucrates) ; and at the beginning 
of Or. xxi. (On a Charge of taking Bribes). Thus of 
the 34 speeches only 23 are entire. 1 
Arrange- Leaving aside the three speeches known only from 

ment in . 

theMss. Dionysius, the other 31, as arranged in the MSS., 
form three divisions. The first division consists of 
the solitary epideictic speech, No. n. (the Epitaphius) 
— interpolated, as it were, by accident, and (con- 
sidering its almost certain spuriousness) possibly at a 
late time. The second division consists of Orations I. 
and in. to xi. inclusive, — all forensic, except viii., and 
arranged with an attempt at classification of subjects. 
Oration 1. refers to a case of murder ; in. and iv. to 
cases of wounding with murderous intent ; v. vi. vn. 
deal with cases of impiety ; viii.-xi. (inclusive) con- 
cern, directly or indirectly, cases of libel (Ka/crfyopla) ; 
— No. viii., though not forensic, being numbered w T ith 
these for convenience. In the third division, con- 
sisting of Orations xii.-xxxi. inclusive, no such 
system of arrangement can be discovered ; but the 

1 These facts are taken partly from thereto ; partly from the references 
Baiter and Sauppe's edition of the of Blass to Sauppe's Epistola Grit tea 
text of Lysias, and the critical notes (Att. Bcrcds. pp. 368-371). 

ix L YSIA S — WORKS 1 97 

twenty speeches have this in common, that all relate 
to causes either formally or virtually public. Oration 
xvii. (On Era-ton's Property — in the MSS. irepl 
Bijfioaicov aBiKTj/jbdrcov), though not formally public, is 
so virtually, as concerning a confiscation to the 
treasury ; the case dealt with by Or. xxm. (Against 
Pancleon), though private in form, is so far akin to a 
public cause that it turns upon a disputed claim to 
Athenian citizenship. 

It seems probable that each of these two divisions 
— Or. 1. with in. to xi., and Or. xn. to xxxi.— is a 
fragment of a manuscript edition which originally 
comprised all the speeches of Lysias ; but whether 
both fragments belong to the same edition can hardly 
be decided. 1 

The extant speeches of Lysias may be considered 
under the heads of Epideictic, Deliberative and 
Forensic. After these, it will remain to speak of 
the Miscellaneous Writings ascribed to him, repre- 
sented by the Address to his Companions (Or. vm.) 
and the Platonic Eroticus. Lastly, the Fragments of 
speeches and letters will claim notice. 

Epideictic Speeches 

Of the Epideictic speeches of Lysias at least 
one genuine specimen remains — the fragment of an 

1 If both fragments belong to the private speeches— whether technically 
same edition, then this edition would private, or only virtually so, as con- 
seem to have contained (1) the public cerning the individual more than the 
speeches, classed together as such, State— arranged according to subjects, 
but not arranged according to sub- But then it is difficult to explain why 
jects, with the great speeches Against Orat. vi., Against Andocides— essen - 
Eratosthenes and Against Agoratus tially a 8t)/jl6(tios \6yos — should appear 
(xii. xiii.) at their head: (2) the among the latter. 


at the Pan- 


oration delivered at the Olympic festival. The 
fashion of addressing a set harangue to the Pan- 
hellenic concourse at the great national meetings had 
been set by the earliest sophists. Hippias " used 
to charm Greece at Olympia with ornate and ela- 
borate speeches." 1 The Olympic oration of Gorgias 
was renowned ; and at Delphi his golden statue stood 
in the temple where, during the panegyris, he had 
" thundered his Pythian speech from the altar." 2 If 
only as displays of rhetorical art, such harangues 
were in harmony with the character of the great 
Panhellenic meetings, the central idea of which was 
open competition in every sort of excellence, physical 
and mental. But the speaker at such a time would 
have certain practical themes suggested to him by 
the occasion itself, and would enjoy a rare oppor- 
tunity of treating them with practical effect. He 
could interpret and apply to passing events the thought, 
necessarily present to every mind in such an assem- 
blage, of a common Hellenic brotherhood. Gorgias 
had not failed to strike this chord. " His speech 
at Olympia dealt with the largest of political ques- 
tions. Seeing Greece torn by faction, he became a 
counsellor of concord, seeking to turn the Greeks 
against the barbarians, and advising them to take 
for the prizes of their arms not each others' cities 
but the land of the barbarians." 3 Hellenic nationality 
as a tie no less real than local citizenship, the Hel- 
lenic cause as paramount to all individual interests, 
must, in one form or another, have always been 

1 ZdeXye rty 'E\\d5a h 'OXv/JLirLa " 2 rbv \6yov rlv UvOlkov arrb rod 

\6yoLS ttolklKols /cat ir€(ppovrL(jfx4voLS ed, flu/iov rfxyvev, ^. I- 9. 
Philostr. Vit. Sophist I. 11. 3 Philostr. 1. c. 


the foremost topic of speakers at the Panhellenic 

This topic had a special significance at the moment The oiyr 
when the Olympiacus of Lysias was spoken. 1 It 
was spoken, according to Diodorus, in the first year 
of the 98th Olympiad, 388 B.C. — the year before 
the Peace of Antalcidas, by which the Corinthian 
War was brought to a close. Athens, Thebes, Argos 
and Corinth had in 388 been seven years at war 
with Sparta. During this time two powers, both 
dangerous to the freedom of Greece, had been rapidly 
growing. In the east the naval strength of Persia 
had become greater than it had been for a century. 
In. the west Dionysius, tyrant, since 405, of Syracuse, 
had reduced Naxos, Catana, and Leontini ; had twice 
defeated Carthage ; and was threatening the Greek 
towns of Italy. 

A magnificent embassy from the court of Dio- The Em- 
bassy from 
nysius, with his brother Thearides at its head, Dionysius. 

appeared at the Olympic festival of 388. Tents 
embroidered with gold were pitched in the sacred 
enclosure ; a number of splendid chariots were 
entered in the name of Dionysius for the four-horse 
chariot-race ; while rhapsodists, whose skill in recita- 
tion attracted crowds, repeated poems composed by 
their royal master. 2 While eye and ear were thus 
allured by the glories of the Syracusan tyrant, Lysias 
lifted up his voice to remind the assembled Greeks 

1 xiv. 107, 109. Grote (x. 103, going on at the time : wore a^iov rbv 

note) rejects the statement of Dio- fiev irpbs dW-r/Xovs TroXe/uov Karadeo-ffai, 

dorus, and assumes 38-4 B.C. — the next §6: and in 384 the Corinthian war 

festival — as the date ; but on grounds had been over for three years, 
which do not appear conclusive. The 2 Diod. xiv. 109. 

oration distinctly speaks of a war as 


that in Dionysius they must recognise one of the two 
great enemies of Greece. Let them not admit to 
their sacred festival the representatives of an impious 
despotism. Let them remember that their duty is 
to overthrow that tyranny and to set Sicily free ; and 
let the war be begun forthwith by an attack upon 
those glittering tents. 1 

Only the first part of the speech has been pre- 
served; but, to judge from the scale on which the 
topics are treated and from the point in the argument 
which the extract reaches, the whole cannot have 
been much longer. 

Analysis. After praising Heracles for having founded the Olympic 

festival in order to promote goodwill among all Hellenes 
(§§ 1, 2), the speaker says that he is not going to trifle with 
words like a mere sophist, but to offer serious counsel upon 
the dangers of Greece. Part of the Greek world is already 
subject to barbarians, part to tyrants. Artaxerxes is rich 
in ships and money ; so is Dionysius. Greeks must lay aside 
civil strife, and unite like their fathers against their common 
foes (§§ 3—6). The Lacedaemonians are the acknow- 
ledged leaders of Greece, unconquered abroad, untroubled 
by faction at home. Why do they not bestir themselves ? 
(§ 7). Instant action is needful. Greece must not wait 
until the enemy in the east and the enemy in the west close 
in upon her together (§§ 8, 9). 

Remarks. Here the extract ends — probably at the point 

where Lysias addressed himself more particularly 
to the state of Sicily, before concluding with an 
invective against the envoys of Dionysius. It is 
natural to compare with this fragment the great 

1 Dionys. Lys. c. 29. 


speech in which eight years later the same subject Theoiym 

was treated, — the Panegyricus of Isocrates. In each compared 

with, tin- 
case a Panhellenic audience is reminded 01 the Panegyri- 


political unity of Hellas and is urged to common 
action against the barbarian ; in each case there is 
an appeal to the most powerful of the Greeks to 
become organisers and leaders of the rest ; in each 
case the speaker claims to be a more practical adviser 
than his predecessors. This last claim would not be 
easy to decide. It would be hard to say which was 
the more hopeful scheme : in 388, that Sparta should 
persuade the other Greek cities to lay aside all 
jealousies and unite for the common defence under 
her leadership ; or in 380, that Sparta and Athens 
should jointly achieve that task, and act as harmo- 
nious colleagues in such a leadership. As regards 
form, the vigorous plainness which stamps the frag- 
ment of the Olympiacus is perhaps in better keeping 
with counsel given at a grave national crisis than 
is the artistic finish of the Panegyricus. Dio- 
nysius says that in the epideictic style Lysias is 
" somewhat languid/' and wants that power of 
"rousing the hearer' 7 which Isocrates, like Demos- 
thenes, possessed. 1 It is not certainly in this fragment 
that we find the justification of the criticism. 

The Funeral Oration ascribed to Lysias purports The e p i- 

. r* • -. • taphius. 

to have been spoken, in the course of the Corinthian 
War, over Athenians who had been sent to the 
support of Corinth. The precise date cannot be 
determined. In § 59 there is an allusion to the 

1 Dionys. de Lys. e. 28 ? ev jmv 8tj ..ov dieyeipei 8e top aKpoarty Co<T7rep 
rois eTrideiKTiKOLS \6yois uaKaKuirepos ^laoKpdrrjs rj AfifAocrdei>7]S, 


battle of Cnidos in 394, and to the visit of the Persian 
fleet to Greece in 393 ; and in § 63 there is an 
allusion to the rebuilding of the walls of Athens in 
the latter year. If it were supposed that the speech 
was retouched after delivery, it might have been 
spoken over those who fell in the battle of Corinth 

in 394. Otherwise the fight in the Long Walls of 
Corinth in 392, or that in 391 when Agesilaus took 
Lechaeum, might be assumed as the occasion. To 
any one of these three hypotheses there is, indeed, 
the objection that the speaker seems to refer to the 
battle in question as one in which the deceased 
were on the winning side (§ 70). 

Analysis. The oration opens by contrasting the greatness of the 

theme with the shortness of the time allowed to the speaker 
for preparation (§§ 1-3). It goes on ; in the usual fashion 
of such discourses, to commemorate the exploits of Athens 
from the earliest times. It relates the war in which Theseus 
repelled the Amazons ; the part taken by Athenians in 
obtaining burial for the Argives who fell before Thebes in 
the war of the Seven ; the brave refusal of Athens to give 
up the children of Heracles to Eurystheus (§§ 4-16). Then 
a brief digression on the character of the Athenians as 
autochthones, and on the early growth of democracy 
(§§ 17-19). The Persian wars — the siege of Aegina in 
458 — and the expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants are success- 
ively noticed, with remarks on the contrast between the 
Athenian and the Spartan empire (§§ 20-66). Then comes 
a curiously short tribute to the departed (§§ 67-70), and a 
most gloomy address to their surviving relatives (§§ 71- 
76) ; followed by the usual commonplace about the im- 
mortal honours of the dead (§§ 77-81). 

Two questions have to be considered in regard to 


the Epitaphius : whether it was written for a real character 

. -, -. -I . . and author- 

OCCaSlOn or merely as an exercise ; and wnetner it is S hi P f 

or is not the work of Lysias. 1 taphius. 

If it was written for a real occasion, then it can 
hardly be his work ; for Lysias, not being an Athenian 
citizen, could not have spoken it himself; and it is 
unlikely that he should have composed it for another, 
since the citizen chosen by the Senate to pronounce 
a funeral harangue was usually an orator of repute.' 2 
But two things are in favour of the view that the 
Epitaphius was a mere rhetorical exercise : first, 
the character of the references to supposed con- 
temporary events, — references particular enough to 
have been inserted by a composer anxious for 
the appearance of reality, yet not exactly corre- 
sponding with any known situation ; secondly, the 
neglect of topics which a mere exercise could afford 
to ignore, but which in a real oration would, accord- 
ing to all fitness and all usage, be prominent — the 
topics of practical advice and of consolation. This 
Epitaphius says little enough about the dead ; it 
scarcely attempts to exhort or to comfort the living. 
If, then, we may assume what the general character 

1 The case for, and the case against, vtto ty/s iroXeus 6s au yvdofiy re Soktj 
the authenticity of the Epitaphius are fxr] d^vveros elvai kcll a^ubcrei TrporjKy. 
well argued in two essays — (1 ) Lysias A third hypothesis lias been advanced 
Epitaphios als echt erwiesen, by Dr. by Le Beau (pp. 37 ff.) — that the 
Le Beau, Stuttgart, 1863 : (2) De oration was written by Lysias to be 
Epitaphio Lysiae Oratorifalso tributo, spoken by the Arch on Polemarch at 
by H. Eckert, Berlin [1865 ?]. Le one of the annual commemorations of 
Beau's able essay is clear and admir- citizens who had died during the past 
ably thorough, but defends a hopeless year ; but Eckert maintains that such 
cause : Eckert's is a full re-statement, annual commemorations were not in- 
in reply to Le Beau, of the arguments stituted before the time of Alexander 
against the genuineness. (pp. 6 11'.). 

2 Cf. Thuc. II. 34, avr]p ripryjievos 


of the speech indicates — that it was composed merely 
as a rhetorical essay — the next question is — Was 
Lysias the author ? The external evidence is incon- 
clusive. Harpocration and Theon 1 ascribe it with- 
out suspicion to Lysias. Aristotle quotes from "the 
Epitaphius " a passage which is found in our speech, 
but does not name Lysias, though in the same 
chapter he cites Pericles, Isocrates and others by 
name. Nothing, however, can fairly be inferred from 
this except that in Aristotle's time the speech was 
celebrated. 2 Dionysius nowhere mentions an Epi- 
taphius by Lysias ; and his silence is suspicious. 
Turning from the external to the internal evidence, 
we find that this is overwhelmingly against the 
authorship of Lysias. All his leading characteristics — 
simplicity, grace, clearness, the sense of symmetry — 
are conspicuous by their absence. The structure of 
the whole is clumsy ; the special topics are ill arranged, 
and receive a treatment sometimes meagre, sometimes 
extravagantly diffuse ; the language is affected, turgid 
and in many places obscure to a degree which makes 
it inconceivable that this oration and the fragment 
of the Olympiacus can be the work of the same man. 3 

1 Theon, irpoyvpLvdarpLaTa, p. 164 48) the arrangement (ra^ts), "inven- 
(Spengel, Rhet. Gr. n. p. 68) exo- tion " (evpeais), and diction (Ae£ts) of 
fiev 5e /cat 'ItroKpdrovs pev ra iyKuj- the speech, and shows how thoroughly 
fua, UXdrcovos 5e /cat QovKvdidov /cat each is foreign to the manner of 
'T-rrepeidov /cat Avalov tovs iirLracpiovs. Lysias. It has not been judged 

2 Arist. Rhct. in. 10, /cat olov ev necessary here to follow his analysis 
r(p ewiTcupicp, 5 ton atjiov r\v iirl into details. The broad impression 
rep rcKpip rep t&v ev Sa\a/x?^t left upon the mind by the speech as 
TeXevrrjaavTiov Keipaadat rr)v a whole will be enough for most 
'EWdda, k.t.X. The passage occurs readers. As Dobree said — "Lysias 
in nearly the same words in § 60 of in genere epideictico quantumvis 
our Epitaphius. plenus et dimuens ; nugax, salebrosus, 

"' Eckert, in the essay referred to indigestus nunquam esse potuit." 
above, examines at length (pp. 19- (Advers. I. p. 15.) 


There are several resemblances of expression between 
this Epitaphius and the Panegyricus of Isocrates, 
and these have often been explained by supposing 
Isocrates to have borrowed from Lysias. But let any 
careful reader note how thoroughly the more rhetorical 
parts of the Epitaphius bear the stamp of a cento, and 
he will prefer to suppose that some very inferior 
writer has borrowed from Isocrates. 1 No weight can be 
allowed to the argument that Plato in the Menexenus 
(386 B.C. ?) had this particular Epitaphius in view. 
The Menexenus goes, indeed, over very nearly the 
same range of subjects ; but these subjects were the 
commonplaces of commemorative oratory, and the 
coincidence is no warrant for assuming a direct 
imitation. If it may be taken for granted that 
Aristotle's citation in the Rhetoric is from our 
Epitaphius, the composition of the speech, whoever 
was the author, may be placed between 380 and 340 
B.C. 2 In any case, considering the general character 
of the Greek, 3 it can scarcely be put much below the 
first half of the second century B.C. 

Deliberative Speech 

The speeches of Lysias for the ecclesia have had 
the same fate as his epideictic speeches. These, too, 
are represented by one fragment alone — that which 

1 Cf. Panegyr. § 72 with Epitaph. residence at Athens, 335-323 B.C. : 
§ 9 : Pan. § 88 with E. § 29 : Pan. § see Grote's Aristotle, I. 34. 

115 with E. § 59 ; etc. " Illic " (i.e. 3 " Sermone utitur sat bene Graeco 

in the Panegyricus), says Dobree, atque Attico, et in universum spec- 

"summum oratorem videas, hie tanti non videtnr in sermonis purita- 

nugacem compilatorem." tern et verborum delectum admodum 

2 Aristotle's Rhetoric having been peccasse " (Dobree, Adv. p. 14). Cf. 
written probably during his second Eckert, p. 52. 


Or. xxxiv., now stands last in the collection as Oration xxxiv. 

a Plea for . ... 

theConsti- Like the fragment of the Olympiacus, it is given by 
Dionysius as a specimen ot a class, lhe title which 
it usually bears describes it as a Plea against abolish- 
ing the ancient Constitution of Athens. When, after 
the fall of the Thirty, the democracy was restored in 
403, it was the aim of Sparta to restrict it. One 
Phormisius proposed in the ecclesia that only land- 
owners should have the franchise, a measure which, 
according to Dionysius, would have excluded about 
five thousand citizens. The speech from which he 
sives an extract was made against this motion during; 
a debate in the ecclesia. It appears to have been 
written by Lysias for some wealthy citizen who was 
not personally affected by the proposal, and may 
probably be regarded as the earliest of the orator's 
works now known. 

Analysis. A censure on the proposers and supporters of the motion 

is followed by a statement of the speaker's political faith. 
Nothing but a full democracy, he says, can save the country. 
When Athens was imperial, did she limit the franchise ? 
On the contrary, she gave one of the special privileges of 
citizenship to the Euboeans. Then, to take the landowners' 
point of view, it is not they who have ever profited by 
oligarchies. In fact, it is just on their property that the 
advocates of this, as of former oligarchies, have designs 
(§§ 1-5). 

If it is said that Athens can be safe only by obeying 
Sparta, it should be remembered how desperate are the 
terms which Sparta would like to impose. Surely it is 
better to die fighting for one's rights than to pass sentence 
of death upon oneself. But there is a clanger for SparUi 
also, which will to a certain extent restrain her. She leaves 

i x L YSIA S — WORKS 207 

Argos and Mantineia at peace, because she knows that 
nothing can be gained, and that much would be risked, by 
driving them to extremities : she will feel the same in 
regard to Athens. This was the policy of Athens herself 
when she was greatest (§§ 6-9). It would be strange if 
the democrats who fought bravely in exile should lose heart 
now that they are restored ; if the sons of men who saved 
Hellas should shrink from delivering Athens (§§ 10, 11). 

Dionysius remarks on this speech that there is 
nothing to prove that it was actually delivered on the 
occasion supposed, but that " at all events it is in a 
style suitable for debate. " l For that very reason, the 
smooth finish of the extract from the Olympiacus is 
not to be looked for here ; a rougher vigour takes its 
place. Regarded historically, it has one point of 
interest — the analogy suggested between Sparta's con- 
temptuous forbearance towards Argos and Mantineia 
and her probable attitude towards Athens. Nothing 
could show more strikingly the prostrate condition 
in which Athens was left by the Thirty Tyrants than 
that a speaker in the ecclesia should have ventured 
to use such an illustration. 

1 De Lys. c. 32, el fikv ovv epprjdr} rore, &8rfkop' crvyKeLrcu yodu Cjs irpbs 
ayGova. iTiTTjdeiws, 



of distinc- 

" public " 



Forensic Speeches in Public Causes 

In classifying forensic speeches, the first thing to be 
done is to fix the principle of distinction between 
the public and the private. One method is to con- 
sider solely the form of procedure, and to distinguish 
"public" and "private" as they were technically 
distinguished by Greek law. Another method is to 
consider rather the substance than the form of each 
cause, and to arrange the causes according as their 
practical interest was more directly for the State or 
for the individual. Blass adopts the latter plan. 1 

1 Blass's classification is as fol- 
lows : — 

I. Public Causes : Against Epi- 
crates [Or. xxvn] : Against Ergocles 
[xxviii] : Against Philocrates [xxix] : 
Against Nicomachus [xxx] : Against 
the Corndealers [xxu] : Against 
Evandrus [xxvi] : Against Philon 
[xxxr] : Against A Icibiades [xiv, xv] : 
Defence on Charge of Taking Bribes 
[xxi] : For Polystratns [xx] : Defence 
on a Charge of seeking to abolish the 
Democracy [xxv] : For Mantitheus 
[xvt] : On the Property of the Brother 

of Nicias [xvin] : On the Property of 
Aristophanes [xix]. 

II. .Private Causes in which the 
person of the accused, or the conse- 
quences of the offence in question, had 
a specially high importance for the 
Commonweal (Att. Bereds. p. 539). 
Against Eratosthenes [xn] : Against 
Agoratus [xin] : Against Andocides 

III. Properly Private Causes. 
On the Murder of Eratosthenes [i] : 
Against Simon [in] : On Wounding 
with Intent [iv] : For Callias [v] : 


The speech On the Murder of Eratosthenes [Or. 1.], 
for instance, is referred by Blass to the private class, 
since the cause, though formally public (as being a 
ypa<j>rj $6vov), was of no properly political interest. 
The obvious objection to such a mode of classification 
is its uncertainty. The definite technical distinction 
once abandoned, it becomes hard to say what is or 
is not a "public" cause. Thus the speeches Against 
Eratosthenes [Or. xn.] and Against Agoratus [Or. 
xiil] are placed by Blass in a rank by themselves, 
intermediate between the properly public and the 
properly private, because in each case, though an 
individual is mainly concerned, the issue is of high 
moment to the State. Such differences have a real 
literary importance, and have already been recognised 
(p. 163) as corresponding to different shades of style. 
But they appear too indefinite to form a good basis 
for scientific classification. The necessity of drawing 
a doubtful or arbitrary line is avoided by taking 
the classification supplied by Greek law itself. 
Classified as public and private (Stj/jloctloc and ISico- 
tikoL) in the Greek sense, the speeches of Lysias 
will stand thus : — 

A. — Speeches in Public Causes 
I. Causes relating to Offences directly against 

the State (ypacfral Br]fjLO(TLO)v dBifcrjfjLaTGdv) ; Slich as 

t i 'eason, malversation in office, e n ibezzlement of 
■public moneys. 

On the Sacred Olive [vu] : For the Against Pancleon [xxni]. 
Soldier [ix] : Against Theomnestus IV, Bagatelle Spce-cJies. For the 

[x, xi] : Against Diogeiton [xxxn] : Invalid [xxiv] : To his Companions 

On the Property of Eraton [xvn] : [viu].— Aft. Bcrcds. pp. 445-660. 



1. For Poly stratus [Or. xx.] 

2. Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes 

[Or. xxi.] 

3. Against Ergocles [Or. xxvm.] 

4. Against Epicrates [Or. xxvn.] 

5. Against Nicomachus [Or. xxx.] 

6. Against the Cornclealers [Or. xxn.] 

II. Cause relating to Unconstitutional Procedure 

(ypcKpr) irapavofjLwv). 

On the Property of the Brother of Nieias 
[Or. xviil] 

III. Causes relating to Claims for Money ivith- 
heldfrom the State (airoypa^al). 

1. For the Soldier [Or. ix.] 

2. On the Property of Aristophanes [Or. 


3. Against Philocrates [Or. xxix.] 

IV. Causes relating to a Scrutiny (SoKLfiaaia), 
especially the Scrutiny by the Senate of Officials- 

1. Against Evandrus [Or. xxvl] 

2. For Mantitheus [Or. xvx] 

3. Against Philon [Or. xxxi.] 

4. Defence on a Charge of seeking to abolish 

the Democracy [Or. xxv.] 

5. For the Invalid [Or. xxiv.] 

V. Causes relating to Military Offences (ypa(j>al 

Xenrora^loVy aaTpareias, a:.t.X.) 

1. Against Alcibiades, I. [Or. xiv.] 

2. Against Alcibiades, II. [Or. xv.] 

VI. Causes relating to Murder or Intent to 

murder (ypacpal (povov, rpav/LiaTos i/c TTpovoia*?). 


1. Against Eratosthenes [Or. xn.] 

2. Against Agoratus [Or. xiii.] 

3. On the Murder of Eratosthenes [Or. l] 

4. Against Simon [Or. in.] 

5. On Wounding with Intent [Or. iv.] 

VII. Causes relating to Impiety (ypacjxil dcre- 

1. Against Andocides [Or. vi.] 

2. For Callias [Or. v.] 

3. On the Sacred Olive [Or. vn.] 

B. — Speeches in Private Causes 

I. Action for libel (SUtj KaK^opla^). 
Against Theomnestus 1 [Or. x.] 

II. Action by a Ward against a Guardian (8'i/crj 


Against Diogeiton [Or. xxxn.] 

III. Trial of a Claim to Property (StaStKao-ia). 
On the Property of Eraton 2 [Or. xvn.] 

IV. Answer to a Special Plea (irpb? irapa- 


Against Pancleon [Or. xxiil] 

Speeches in Public Causes 
I. Causes relating to Offences directly against 

THE STATE (y parcel Srjfiocricov aSifCTj/idrcDv). 

1. For Poly stratus. [Or. xx.] — Harpocration i. i. foi 
describes this as a " Defence for Poly stratus on a stratus. 

1 The MSS. give /caret QeojuLvrjarov the first : see below. 

A. as Or. X. and Kara QeofivTjcjTov 2 Entitled in the MSS. ire pi drjfio- 

B. as Or. XI. But the so-called a'aav adiKr)fi6,TU)i>. 
Second Speech is a mere epitome of 


charge of seeking to abolish the Democracy." 1 But 
from the speech itself the precise nature of the charge 
cannot be gathered. All that can be safely inferred 
is that the offence alleged was of a political nature, 
and was connected with the oligarchical revolution of 
411 B.C. Polystratus had held several offices under 
the oligarchy (§ 5), and had been elected to a vacancy 
in the Council of the Four Hundred just eight 
days before the defeat of the Athenian fleet by the 
Spartans at Eretria, immediately after which the 
government fell (§ 14). His most important employ- 
ment had been that of enrolling the 5000 persons 
to whom the Council conceded the franchise ; and 
he takes credit for having placed, in his capacity 
of registrar, 9000 instead of 5000 on the roll. 
It was only in their last peril that the Oligarchy 
took steps for giving a real existence to the nominal 
body of 5000 ; and this agrees with the account of 
Polystratus, who dates his registrarship from his 
entry into the Council only eight days before its 
overthrow (§ 14). When the democracy was re-estab- 
lished, Polystratus was prosecuted and heavily fined ; 
probably on the ground of malversation in some office 
which he had held under the Oligarchy. 
Probable In the present case malversation in his registrar- 

the charge, ship may have been the special charge against him. 
The penalty threatened was pecuniary ; but lie says 
that, as he has no money with which to meet it, the 
result for him, if condemned, will be disfranchisement 
as a state-debtor. 
Date. The date must lie between 411 and 405. The 

1 s.v. IIoXvarpaTos — virip U. drjfiov KaraXvaeoos airdXoyla. 


war in the Hellespont is noticed (§ 29) ; but there 
is no reference to Argimisae or subsequent events ; 
and the early part of 407 is therefore the latest elate 
which appears probable. 

Polystratus, who was a man past sixty (§ 10), is 
represented by the eldest of his three sons (§ 24). 

The first part of the speech sets forth that Polystratus Analysis. 
was one of the least prominent and least culpable of the 
oligarchs ; that he had already suffered severely, and is now 
accused maliciously ; and that the general tenor of his past 
life proves his patriotism (§§ 1-23). The speaker then 
relates his own services in Sicily after the disaster of 413, 
and reads a patriotic letter written to him by his father at 
that time. He recounts also the services of his brothers, 
the second and third sons of Polystratus ; of- whom the 
former had been active at the Hellespont, and the latter at 
home (§§ 24-29). In return for all that the father and his 
three sons have done for the city, they ask only to be 
spared a verdict which would rob them of citizenship 
(§§ 30-36). 

The only ancient notice of this speech is by The speech 

. •11 Probably 

Harpocration, who once refers to it ; then, indeed, spurious. 
without suspicion. 1 But the general opinion of recent 
critics 2 pronounces it spurious. In one respect alone 
it has at first sight a resemblance to the style of 
Lysias. It is thoroughly natural. Yet the natural- 
ness is not that of Lysias. It is the absence, not the 
concealment, of art ; the simplicity, not of a master, 


1 s. v. JloXvarparos. posed in the text of this speech (pp. 

- As of Baiter, Sauppe and Blass. 7-10), all depending on close obscr- 

It is curious to find— in an essay vation of the language of Lysias ; 

published at Munich in 1830, Dis- while the general character of the 

sertatio de locis quibusdam Lysine whole composition— so unlike that of 

arte critica pcrsanandis, by J. Franz its reputed author's work— entirely 

— numerous minute emendations pro- escapes criticism. 


but of a composer wholly untrained. A want of 
logical method renders the statements in the first 
part (§§ 1-23) confused, and the language throughout 
clumsy, sometimes obscure. Instead of the compact 
sentences of Lysias, there are long strings of clauses 
loosely joined; — see especially § 14. Were the 
speech genuine, it would be the only known forensic 
speech of Lysias earlier than the fall of the Thirty 
Tyrants. But it seems hardly doubtful that it must 
be rejected. 

i. 2. De- 2. Defence on a Charge of Taking Bribes. 

charge of [Or. xxi.] — The first part of this speech, in which the 

Bribe? accused met the specific charges against him, has been 
lost ; the part which remains contains only his appeal 
to his previous character generally. The precise 
nature of the charge is therefore doubtful. In § 21 
the speaker asks that he may not be adjudged guilty 
of taking bribes ; hence the title given to the frag- 
ment. The accused had probably held some office, 
and was charged, when he gave account of it, with 
corrupt practices. 

Date. A clue to the date is given by the fact that the 

speaker became of full age {i.e. eighteen) in the archon- 
ship of Theqpompus (§1), 411 B.C.; and had per- 
formed leiturgies yearly to the archonship of Eucleides 
(§ 4), 403 B.C. No reason appears why his public 
services should have ceased abruptly in that year. 
On the other hand, if he had performed leiturgies later 
than 403 B.C., he would probably have mentioned 
them. The year of the speech may therefore be con- 
jectured to be 402, and the age of the speaker 26. 1 

1 Blass, Att. Ber. p. 496. 


Having already answered the accusers in detail, he goes Analysis. 
on, in the extant fragment, to enumerate his public services. 
As choregus and trierarch he has spent upwards of ten talents 
in eight years — more than four times the amount which 
would have satisfied legal requirements (.§§ 1—5). His tri- 
reme, when he was trierarch, was so good that Alcibiades, 
as admiral, had done him the unwelcome honour of sailing 
in it (§ 7) ; and it was one of the twelve which made good 
their escape from Aegospotami (§ 10). 

He might fairly claim some substantial recognition of 
these costly services ; but he asks only not to be deprived 
of his own property (§§ 11—19). In conclusion he reminds 
the judges that one who had risked his life and whole fortune 
for the State was not likely to have taken bribes to defraud 
it (§§ 21, 22). Beggary had often enough hung over his 
wife and children when he was lighting for Athens ; it 
would be hard if it should at last actually befall them by 
the sentence of an Athenian court (§§ 24-52). 

Lysias shows here strikingly his power of adapting The ethos. 
language to character ; the ethos is the merit of the 
speech. It expresses the strong, honest feeling of a 
man who has made sacrifices for his country, who is 
conscious of his desert, and who claims, rather than 
begs, acquittal. " I think, judges, that it would be 
much fairer for you to be indicted by the revenue- 
officers for keeping my property, than for me to be 
now in peril on a charge of keeping the property of 
the Treasury ... I am not proud of what is left to 
me, but of what I have spent upon you. My fortune 
came to me from others — the credit for its use is my 
own"(§§ 16, 17). 

3. Against Ergocles. [Or. xxviil] — In 390 B.C. 1. 3. 
a fleet of forty triremes was sent to the coast of Asia Ergocies. 


Minor under the command of Thrasybulus. After 
many successes in the Hellespont and a victory over 
the Lacedaemonians at Lesbos, Thrasybulus was slain 
at Aspendus in Pamphylia by a party of natives who 
surprised his camp by night. 1 Meanwhile anger had 
been excited at Athens by reports that the com- 
manders of the expedition had embezzled moneys 
levied on the towns in Asia, and had been treacherous 
to the cause of the city. A decree was passed de- 
manding an account of all funds so raised, and 
recalling the commanders, Thrasybulus died before 
he could obey the summons ; his colleagues, of whom 
Date. Ergocles was one, were brought to trial in 389 B.C. 
The procedure was apparently by impeachment. 
Ergocles was condemned to death and his property 
was confiscated. 2 

The short speech of Lysias was spoken by one of 
the Public Prosecutors ; who, as others had already 
gone fully into the charges, does little more than 
recapitulate them. 

Analysis. Ergocles is charged with having betrayed Greek towns 

in Asia, with having injured citizens and friends of Athens, 
and with having enriched himself at the public cost. All 
this time the fleet was allowed to go to ruin, with the con- 
nivance of Thrasybulus — who would never have been given 
the command, had it been foreseen that only his " flatterers " 
(§ 4) were to benefit by it (g§ 1-7). Thrasybulus had done 
well to die ; the partners of his guilt are now seeking to buy 
their lives by wholesale bribery ; but this must not be suf- 

1 Xen. Hellen. iv. viii. 25-30. having in his hands part of the con- 

2 See § 2 of the speech Against fiscated property of Ergocles. 
Philocrates, who was accused of 

L YSIA S— WORKS 2 1 7 

fered (§§ 8—11). Ergocles pleads his patriotism at the 
restoration of the democracy ; but he has since shown him- 
self worse than the Tyrants (§§ 12-14). His condemnation 
and that of his associates is necessary as an example to 
Greece, and is due to the cities, such as Halicarnassus/ which 
they betrayed (§§ 15-17). 

Decision and vigorous brevity are the chief cha- 
racteristics of this speech, as of that Against Epicrates 
(xxvu.) and that Against Philocrates (xxix.) ; both 
of which, like this, were spoken by Public Prosecutors. 
An address by an official afforded less scope for 
artistic individual colouring than a speech which had 
to be fitted to the character and circumstances of a 
private speaker. 

4. Against Epicrates. [Or. xxvu.] — The title, i. 4. 
"Against Epicrates and his Fellow-Envoys," which Epicrates. 
one Theodoras 2 affixed to this speech, is clearly wrong. 
In the first place, each of the " Fellow -Envoys " would 
have been the subject of a separate accusation ; in 
the next place, there is absolutely no reference to an 
embassy except in the opening words, 3 which have 
probably been interpolated to match the title. The 
grammarian, it can hardly be doubted, was thinking 
of the Epicrates mentioned by Demosthenes as having 
been condemned, with his colleagues in an embassy, 

1 Xenoplion does not name Hali- cnuro, e'£ aXXojv re iroXewv rjpyvpo- 

carnassus : but lie describes Thrasy- Xdyei, k.t.X. (II. iv. viii. 30). 

bulus, after his victory at Lesbos, 2 The MSS. having KATA EIII- 

as levying money for his troops KPATOTS KAI TfiN 2TMIIPEZ- 

from some towns on the Greek BETTOX EIIIAOEOS OS OEOA1}- 

coast : — €K de tovtov tcls juev 717)00-77- P02. 

ydyero r&v irbXeuv, ck 8e tQv ov ? ' Kar-qyop-qraL fiiv, w avSpes 'A6rj- 

irpoGXwpovcr&v XerjXaT&v xPVl LLara vaioi, ^TriKparovs Ikclvcl teal tQv 

TOiS <JTpaTLU)TCLLS €(JTr€V<Tei> els T7]V (TVfJLTrp€(T^€VTLOV' €v8ujU€?Cr9aL Be %p?J, 

'Podov afaKeadai. ottoos 5' av /cat e/ce? k.t.X. The words teal rCov crvfiTrpecr- 
ws eppufievecrTCLTOv to crTpdrevpLa ttoltj- (BevrQv are probably spurious. 


by a decree of the people. 1 Whether this Epicrates 
is the same person or not, cannot be decided. But, 
in the present case, the charge against him is of 
having embezzled public moneys while he held the 
office of comptroller of the treasury (§ 3). The charge 
must have been made either at his audit (evdvvcu) or 
by a special impeachment (elo-ayyeXla). The only clue 
to the date is the fact that a war had now lasted 
Date. some time (§ 10). The latter part of the Corinthian 
War — about the year 389 — is probably indicated. 

Like the speech against Ergocles, this was pre- 
ceded by others for the prosecution, and gives there- 
fore only a general view of the case. 

Analysis. Corrupt officers of the treasury, like Ergocles, often tell 

the judges, in asking for a verdict against some one whom 
they have wrongfully accused, that if it is not given, the city 
will soon lack funds to pay its public servants. And now 
this lack of funds is caused by the corrupt officials them- 
selves. The State must punish heavily those guardians of 
the revenue who so often procure the confiscation of private 
property while they enrich themselves out of the property 
of the public (§§ 1—7). If such men were condemned with- 
out the forms of a trial, it would be no breach of justice ; 
their guilt is notorious. This is war-time ; yet these men 
can not only pay heavy taxes, but at the same time live in 
the best houses — men who, in quieter times, had not bread 
to eat (§§ 8—10). No appeal to mercy should be admitted 
from such a quarter. The courts have lately been too 
lenient. Epicrates and his like must be made to suffer loss, 
since they are insensible to shame (§§ 11— 1G). 

5. Against Nicomachus. [Or. xxx.] — Soon after 

1 Be Falsa Lcgat. § 277 : Blass, p. 445. 

L YSIA S— WORKS 2 1 9 

the fall of the First Oligarchy in 411 B.C., a decree of L 5. 
the ecclesia (probably in 410) appointed a board of Nico 
special Commissioners (Nomothetae x ) for the revision 
of the laws ; especially for the recension of those old 
laws of Solon, written on the sides of the wooden 
prisms called Kurbeis or Axones, which now needed 
to be freed from corruptions and interpolations. 
Nicomachus 2 was a member of the Commission. 
Four months were assigned for the work : 3 but 
Nicomachus contrived to extend his share of it over 
six years — i.e. until the overthrow of the democracy 
in 404 — without rendering an account. 

After the fall of the Second Oligarchy in 403 ; 
a second Eevising Commission was appointed by the 
Senate. These special Nomothetae were to report 
within one month to the Senate and the 500 ordinary 
Nomothetae selected by the demes. 4 Nicomachus 

1 Nicomachus is called in §§ 2 and ronymic used convertibly with the 

27 vofiodeTTjs. This was probably simple name, as Eubulides for Eu- 

the ordinary official designation of bulus in Or. xix. § 29 ; cf. Andro- 

the special Commissioners both in cleides for Androcles in Isae. Or. 

411 and 403 : the title duaypacpevs vi. 46. Blass, with more likelihood, 

tQ>v pojucov, "Recorder" of the laws, suspects a mere blunder. Is it 

also applied to Nicomachus in § 2, possible that in § 11 we ought to 

being sometimes used, perhaps, to insert tovtov after ireldovci, and 

distinguish the special from the understand: — "they persuade the 

ordinary Nomothetae.- — Rauchenstein defendant to enunciate a law of 

notices in Demosth. Olynth. in. § 10 which he was himself the parent " 

another trace of the occasional (NiKo/jLaxLSrjv vonov)~& law invented 

appointment of special Nomothetae : by Nicomachus for the occasion ? 

see his Introduction to this speech, This would be quite in keeping with 

AusgcivaMtc Ecclen clcs Lysias, p. the sarcastic tone of the speech. 

•>'t -I, • 1. j-- ° S 2, TrpodTayOev yap avroj recr- 

- In § 11, as once 111 a quotation , r „ , , r * 

by Harpocration (s. v. eivipoXr)), jNico- , \ , , 

machus is called Nicomachides : — eirotrja 

ireidovaL ISitKOfiax^yju vojllov a7ro5e?^at 4 The psephisma of 403 for the 

ws XPV Ka <- T7)v (3ov\r)v (TwdLKa^etv. revision of the laws is given in full 

Rauchenstein (ad loc.) thinks that by Andocides in the speech On the 

is merely an instance of the pat- Mysteries, § 83. 


was again employed ; his special duty on this occasion 
being to revise the laws which concerned the public 
sacrifices. 1 Again he failed to discharge his task 
within the prescribed term. At the elate of this 
speech he had held office for four years. The speech 
probably belongs, therefore, to 399 B.C. Nicomachus 
is accused before the Board of Auditors (the ten 
Logistae) of having failed to render an account of his 

office (aXoyiov Bltcr]).' 2 

The speaker is one of several accusers (§ 34). 
probably not the principal ; the penalty demanded is 
death (§§ 23, 27). 

Analysis. The first part of the speech sets forth the antecedents of 

Nicomachus. His father was a public slave ; he himself, 
after late enrolment in a phratria, became an under-scribe to 
a magistrate. His present offence was not the first of the 
kind which he had committed. After the First Oligarchy, 
as after the Second, commissioners for the revision of the 
laws were appointed. Nicomachus had been one of these 
also ; and had retained the appointment for six years (§2) 
—(that is, till 404 B.C.)— (§§ 1-6). 

He will perhaps try to cast upon his accuser the sus- 
picion of oligarchical sympathies. It ought not to be for- 

1 See § 25, kclI t&v ocriojv Kal points out (Introd. p. 131). This 
t<2v iep&v avaypa<f>evs yevofxevos els would nieo.ii that Nicomachus had 
a/Mporepa ravra 7]jidpT7]Kev. Here rendered an account, and that, when 
t&v ba'uov refers to the first Com- he rendered it, an accusation was 
mission of 410 B.C., when the laws brought against him hy some citizen ; 
entrusted to the revision of Nico- which would then have been heard 
machus were only secular ; r<2v by the e&dvvoi. The charge against 
lepZv to the second Commission of Nicomachus was that he had never 
403 b. c. , when the laws which came rendered any account to the Logistae. 
under his revision were those relating The points of law connected with 
to public worship. this speech are discussed in an essay 

2 The description in the MS. entitled Diatribe in Lysiae orationem 
heading of the speech — evOwujp Karri- in Nicom-achum, by F. Y. Weijers, 
yopia — is inaccurate, as Rauchenstein Leydeu, 1839. 


gotten that it was he himself who, by a forged law, enabled 
the oligarchs to destroy Cleophon x in 405. His sufferings 
under the Thirty were involuntary, and cannot be set against 
an action which was deliberate (§§ 7-16). The speaker 
will be taunted by Mcomachus with impiety because he 
complained in the ecclesia of the number of public sacrifices 
which this self- authorised legislator had ordered. But the 
truth is that, by ordering a number of new sacrifices, Xico- 
machus has caused those prescribed by the laws of Solon 
(ra etc toov /cvpftecov, §17) to be neglected ; and has in two 
years spent twelve talents more than w r as necessary (§ 21). 
Hence the city, from want of funds, has been driven to con- 
fiscations (§ 22). Mcomachus ought to suffer the extreme 
penalty, as a w T arniug to the corrupt officials who, confident 
in their powers of speech, are reckless of public or private 
misery (§§ 17-25). 

Neither service in war, nor liberality at home, nor the 
merit of ancestors, nor the hope of his own gratitude, can 
be pleaded as a reason for acquitting him. The people 
themselves might well be denounced for entrusting to such 
as he the powers once held by a Solon, a Themistocles, a 
Pericles (§ 28). Mcomachus has sought in vain to bribe 
his accusers ; let his judges do their duty as firmly (§§ 26—35). 

Unsparing and rather coarse sarcasm is the 
strength of this attack. Throughout, Mcomachus is 
treated, not as the recorder of laws, but as the son of 
the public slave, as the ex-under-scribe. "Are we to 
acquit him for his ancestors ? " asks the accuser. 
"Nay, for his own sake he deserves death; and for 
theirs — the slave-market" (§ 27). 

6. Against the Corndealers. [Or. xxil] — The 

i. 6. 

1 Cleoplion, oXvpoTroLos, the dema- (Or. xix.) § 48: KXeoQcovra ircLvres the Corn- 
gogue : Ar. Ran. 677: Arist. Bhct. tare on TroWa errj dLex^ipiae tcl tt}s C e ' rS ' 
r. 15, etc, Cf. Lys. dc bonis Aristoph. ttoXcus irdvTa. 


Guild of Corndealers (cnT07rco\ac) was composed of 
aliens (§ 5) resident in the Peiraeus, who bought corn 
as it came into port and sold it in small quantities to 
the citizens. The trade was a good one, and was 
watched with jealousy both by citizens and by whole- 
sale importers (efiiropoc, § 27). Stringent laws, ad- 
ministered by a board of Corn-Inspectors (o-n-o^uXa/ee?, 
§ 8), were framed to limit the gains of the retail- 
dealers. One of these laws forbade them to charge 
more than one obol a bushel over cost-price (§ 8), 
another, in order to check monopoly, provided that 
no one should buy more than 50 phormoi (about 50 
bushels) of corn at one time (§ 6). 

It is this second law which is here alleged to have 
been broken by the guild or by some of its members. 
The case is tried before an ordinary court under 
the presidency of the Thesmothetae : the penalty is 
Date. The date of the speech cannot be fixed. All that 

can be said is that it was certainly later than the 
beginning of the Corinthian War in 394 B.C. ; possibly 
later than the Peace of Antalciclas in 387 B.C. 1 

Analysis. The speaker begins by deprecating the notion that the 

charge preferred by him is vexatious or spiteful. On the 
contrary, he says, he was at the beginning of the business 
suspected of unduly favouring the Guild. An impeachment 

1 See § 14, which speaks of the "The ships in the Euxine " are the 

rumours spread by the Corndealers ships which brought corn to Athens 

in orders to raise the price of corn: — from those regions : cf. Xen. II i. 

7) ras J'aus 8L€(p0dp6ac tcls kv tu IIovtw 35. The cnrovdai possibly refer to 

9) vtto AaKedai/iovicop iKirXeodcras aw- the Peace of Antalciclas or to nego- 

€i\rj(pdai fj tcl ifiirbpia KeiCkelaOai f} tiations which preceded it. 
ras airovoas /ueWeiis a7ropprj6i]aeadai. 


was first laid before the Senate, who were inclined to deliver 
the Corndealers then and there to the Eleven. It was he 
who then counselled moderation and the observance of the 
usual legal course. Accordingly the case was heard before 
the Senate (which was itself the preliminary court in cases 
of impeachment). ]N"o one came forward as accuser ; and 
the speaker then made the accusation himself. The case 
was sent by the Senate for trial by an ordinary court (§§ 1—4). 
One of the Corndealers is then questioned, and admits 
having bought more than fifty bushels at once, but says that 
he did so by the recommendation of the Corn- Inspectors. 
The speaker shows, first, that this is no defence ; next, that 
the statement is false (§§ 5—10). The dealers plead that 
their object in buying large quantities was to be able to sell 
cheap ; but their claim to public spirit can be refuted (§§ 11— 
16). They have acknowledged their combination against 
the wholesale importers. Their death is the satisfaction 
due to these and to the officials who have so often been 
punished for inability to check such frauds (§§ 17—22). 

Compact and clear, without any attempt at orna- 
ment, this short speech is at least good of its kind, — 
a specimen of the strictly business-like style of 


II. Indictment foe proposing an Unconsti- 
tutional MeASUBE (ypa<pr) 7rapav6fJLcov). 

On the Confiscation of the Property of the Brother n. i. on 
of Nicias. TOr. xvni.l — Eucrates, brother of the fiscation 

J L . of the 

General Nicias, was put to death by the Thirty Property 

. n of the 

Tyrants m 404 B.C. be vera! years alter wards a Brother ot 

certain Poliochus x proposed and carried in the ec- 

1 There is some doubt about the Taylor has been followed by Sauppe 

name. The MSS. have IIoXi'a%os : and other recent editors in reading 

or IloXicrxos : Galen, in his citation UoXioxos, a j>roper name recognised 

(xviii. 2. 657 Kiihn), HoXiovxos. by Harpocration. 



clesia a decree for confiscating the estate left by 
Eucrates. In this speech the elder of the two sons 
of Eucrates pleads against the execution of the 
Form of The legal form of the cause is doubtful. Two 

the cause. ° 

views are possible. (1) The sons of Eucrates may 
have indicted Poliochus under the Graphe Paranomon 
for proposing an unconstitutional measure. In this 
case the speech is an Accusation. (2) Poliochus 
may have indicted the sons of Eucrates for with- 
holding property clue to the State under the decree ; 
the action being in form an apographs, or claim for 
moneys withheld from the Treasury. In this case 
the speech is a Defence. 1 

One point is in favour of the latter view. The 
speaker appeals in his peroration, first, to the judges 
generally, then to the Syndici (§ 26). Now these 
fiscal officers would have had the presidency of the 
court in a cause affecting the treasury. But it is 
not clear why they should have had jurisdiction in a 
trial under the Graphe Paranomon. 

On the other hand, a passage in § 14 supports the 
first view. "All men will know" [i.e. if Poliochus 
gains the cause] " that on the former occasion you 
fined 2 in 1000 drachmas the man who wished to 
confiscate our land, whereas on this occasion he has 
carried his proposal ; and that, therefore, in these two 
cases Athenian judges gave two opposite verdicts, the 

1 Fran civ en (Commcntationcs Lysi- brought are unavailing without a 

«c«c,pp. 124 ff. ) thinks that Hamaker satisfactory emendation of the words 

has proved beyond all doubt that the in § 14— to be noticed presently. 

cause is an diroypa<pri, not a ypa<j>r} ~ Scheibe's emendation of e^/iL- 

•rrapavofiwv. But the arguments wcare for e'f?///.(.We seems certain. 


same man being on his trial for a breach of the 

The last words — irapavo\x(£>v (frevyovros rod avrov 
avSpos — may possibly be corrupt. 1 But if they are 
right, then they prove that this trial, like the former, 
was a Graphe Paranomon against Poliochus. And 
this is confirmed by the fact that " Against Polio- 
chus " is the title under which the speech is cited by 
Galen. 2 On the whole, the probabilities appear to 
lean to this side. But the evidence does not suffice 
to decide the question. 

The date may be inferred from two circumstances. Bate. 
(1) The speaker and his brothers were children in 
404 (§ 10), but are now adults, holding the office of 
trierarchs (§21). (2) On the other hand, Athens and 
Sparta are at peace (§ 15). The Corinthian War 
(394-387 B.C.), therefore, either has not begun or is 
over. And as the son of Niceratus (§ 10), the first 
cousin of the speaker, is not mentioned as having yet 
taken any part in public affairs, the earlier date is 
more likely — 396 or 395 B.C., approximately. 

The following stemma shows the relationship of stemma ofj 

° m x the family 

the persons with whom the speech is concerned : — of Nicias. 

1 Francken [Comm. Lys. p. 126) one would require rbre fxev irapa- 

suggests that Lysias may have vojjlwv cpvyovros, vvv 8e vikt)<7civtos, 

written something like irapavdfxwv 2 Vol. xviii. 2. 657 (Kiihn), ap. 

(pvyovros tote rod ai>5pos [not rod Sauppe, Or. Att. p. 112 and Blass 

avrov dvdpos, as Blass quotes it, Att. Berecls. p. 522. It seems very 

Att. Bcreds. p. 524], vvv 8e vlktj- probable that Kara IloKtoxov is the 

G-avros. But this is too violent a right title, 
change : and besides, as Blass says, 





DiogxStus Eucrates : Nicias, 

(returned from exile in 403. died 404 (§ 5 of speech) the General : 

but is now dead, § 9) I died 413 

Diomnestus : Second son : Eldest son : Xiceratus 

§ 21 § 21 the Speaker (Xenoph. 

Sympos.i. 2, etc.) 

Nicias : § 10 

Analysis. The speaker begins by dwelling on the public services 

of his uncles Nicias and Diognetus and his father Eucrates 
(§§ 1—12). He next argues that a confiscation is never in 
any true sense a gain to the State. First, it endangers the 
most precious of all the city's treasures — concord among 
citizens. In the next place, property thus confiscated is 
always sold below its true value, and part even of the sum 
which it fetches is made away with by the proposer of the 
measure. Left in the hands of patriotic owners — like the 
speaker, his brother, and his cousin, who, all three, are 
trierarchs — it is far more profitable to the State (§§ 13- 

They can produce no relatives to weep and pray for 
them ; they are the last of their house ; they can only 
appeal to the judges to protect the kinsmen of those who 
suffered for the democracy. Let the judges remember the 
time when, in exile and poverty, they prayed to the gods 
for a clay when they might be able to show their gratitude 
to the children of their champions. This gratitude is 
claimed now. The danger which threatens the accused is 
nothing less than utter ruin (§§ 24-27). 

This fragment is interesting as giving a sequel, 
in the history of his family, to the personal fortunes 
of Nicias ; it is interesting, too, as being dis- 

L YSIA S— WORKS 2 2 7 

tin<mished by a quality somewhat rare in the works Distinctive 

& J l J quality of 

of Lysias. Few of his speeches have so much the speech. 
pathos. The address is emphatically an appeal to 
pity ; and excites it less by direct appeals than by 
its simplicity and a tone of manly self - restraint. 
One passage is especially striking — the description 
of Diognetus bringing the orphan children of his 
brothers to Pausanias, and imploring the Spartan 
king to remember all that their fathers had suffered 

(§ 10). 

III. Claims for Moneys withheld from the 

1. For the Soldier. [Or. ix.l — The accused, m. 1. For 

L J the Soldier. 

Polyaenus, is prosecuted under a writ (airoypafyr), 
§§ 3, 21) for the recovery of a fine alleged to be due 
from him to the Treasury. He states that, two 
years before, he had returned to Athens from a cam- 
paign, but had not been two months at home before 
he was again placed upon the list for active service. 
Hereupon he appealed to the General of his tribe (r& 
<TTpaT7iya), § 4) ; but obtained no redress. He spoke 
indignantly on the subject in conversation at one 
of the bankers' tables in the market-place ; and, this 
having been reported to the authorities, he was 
fined under the law against reviling magistrates. 
The Generals did not, however, take any steps to 
levy the fine ; but at the expiration of their year 
of office, left a note of it with the Stewards of 
the Treasury (rot? ra^aLs, § 6). These, after inquiry, 
were satisfied that the fine had been inflicted 
maliciously (§ 7), and cancelled it. The accusers, 


ignoring this decision, now prosecute the soldier, 
at an interval of more than a year, as a state-debtor. 
In case of conviction the penalty would be the pay- 
ment of twice the original fine ; but not the loss of 
civic rights (§ 21). From § 4 the speech may be 
referred to the time of the Corinthian War, 394 
387 B.C. 

Analysis. After complaining that his adversaries have wandered 

from the special issue into general attacks upon his 
character, the speaker sketches the facts of the case (§§ 1— 
7). He then argues, first, that the fine was originally 
illegal, since the offence contemplated by the law was that 
of speaking against a magistrate in court (iv crvvehpiq), 
§ 6), which he had not done ; secondly, that in any case 
the reversal of the sentence by the stewards had absolved 
him (§§ 8-12). 

The malice of his enemies had been provoked, he says, 
by the favour which he had formerly enjoyed with Sos- 
tratos, an influential citizen. They are resolved to ruin 
him. The matter at issue is nominally a fine, but really 
his citizenship ; for, if the court also takes part against hhm 
he will be driven to fly from a city in which justice is not 
to be had (§§ 13-22). 

of genuine- 

Question Harpocration doubted the authenticity of this 

speech ; 1 some recent critics have decisively rejected 
it. 2 There are several traces of mutilation in the 
extant version. Thus the direct question with which 
the speech opens is oddly abrupt ; in § 5 a conver- 
sation is referred to (ra irpoeiprjiiha) as if it had been 
oiven in terms ; and in § 9 the speaker alludes to 

1 s. v. dLKaiucTLs: — Avaias ev r£ irepl tat tones Lyslacae, pp. 64 f. : Blass_ 
(TTpaTLdorov, el yvrjcrios. Att. Bercds. pp. 606 f. 

2 Especially Franckeii, Commen- 


witnesses whom lie has called, but of whom there 
is no other trace. It would be easier to vindicate 
the authorship of Lysias if the speech, as it stands, 
could be assumed to be a mere extract or epitome, 
like the so - called Second Speech Against Theo- 
mnestus. But the epitomic character, distinct there, 
is absent here ; there, proem and epilogue have been 
compressed ; here their redundancies of expression 
are left untouched. 

Francken thinks that the language is in some 
points doubtful Attic ; 1 and that the law is question- 
able. 2 He argues further that, if the text is right 
in § 6, " Ctesicles the archon," there mentioned, must 
be the archon of 01. cxi. 3, 334 B.C. ; and notices 
that, in that year, an armament was prepared, but 
not despatched, by Athens 3 — which agrees with the 
fact that Polyaenus, when enrolled the second time, 
was not called upon to serve. These arguments 
seem to point to different conclusions. If the diction 
and the law are not classically Attic, then the speech 
is a late work, probably a rhetorical exercise. If 
Ctesicles is the Ctesicles of 334, then the speech was 
probably written for a real cause of about that date. 4 

1 e.g. «/r6sfor&/5<win§10— already to decide such points: and nothing 
noticed by Dobree : ducatwis for can be safely argued from them. 

ducaiupa ("plea" or "argument") * SeeSch&f er,Deimsthcnes unci seine 

in § 8, noticed by Harpocr. ; to Trepas ^ ^ m> ^ 1&z 
in the sense of "at last " in § 17. 

2 He infers from Dem. Meid. § 33 4 Blass assumes (Att. Berecls. p. 
that the penalty for reviling a magis- 607) that Ctesicles was one of the 
trate in court, as for striking rbv strategi, and this is certainly easier. 
dpxovra eare^av^^evov, would have But, in that case, the words rod 
been, not a fine, but atimia ; and he tipxovros must be a gloss ; added by a 
thinks it strange that the ra/xuu, commentator who associated the name 
inferior magistrates, should summon only with the archon of 334. A 
their superiors, the strategi, before strategus could not have been called 
them (§ 7). We do not know enough dpx^v- 


The general Far stronger than these special objections is the 

style proves ... 

the Speech general objection arising from the style. This, indeed, 

spurious. . 

appears conclusive. The passage in §§ 15-18, where 
the speaker attacks his adversaries, could hardly have 
come from Lysias. It is overwrought in tone, over- 
loaded with antitheses, and too epideictic for its place. 
The whole defence is meagre, yet not concise — a 
reversal of the manner of Lysias. It was probably 
written by a bad imitator of his style ; but for a real 
cause rather than as an exercise. 1 
in. 2. on 2. On the Property of Aristophanes. [Or. xix.l 

the Pro- J. J J l L ^ J 

perty of — Nicophemus, father of Aristophanes, was the friend 
phanes. of Conon, and his comrade in the naval campaigns of 
394-390 B.C. When Conon visited the Persian 
Court in 394, he left Nicophemus and Hieronymus in 
joint command of the Persian fleet; 2 and when he 
took Cythera in 393 Nicophemus was appointed 
harmost. 3 While Conon and Nicophemus had their 
home at Cyprus (§ 36), their sons, Timotheus and 
Aristophanes, lived at Athens ; the latter poor, until 
the battle of Cnidus in 394 and the campaigns of the 
following years brought some wealth to his father 
and himself (§ 28). On two important occasions 
Aristophanes was engaged in the service of the State. 
He went on an embassy to Sicily (in what year is 
doubtful) with proposals from Evagoras, king of 
Cyprus, to Dionysius ; and succeeded in dissuading 

1 I cannot see that, as Blass thinks, case ; — or by the uncertainty of the 

a sophistic exercise is indicated by date. The subject would surely have 

the accumulation of unknown propter been a poor one for a declamation, 

names in § 5 ; — by the fact of the 2 Diod. xiv. 81 : ^siKodrjfxos, in that 

"influential" Sostratus (§ 13) being passage, being a mere clerical error 

lost to fame ; — by the absence of for Ni/c60t? / u,os. 

clearness in the statement of the ;; Xen. Hdlcn. iv. viii. 8. 


the latter from affording his promised aid to Sparta 
(§§ 19, 20). Again in 389 B.C. he sailed with an 
Athenian expedition to the aid of Evagoras (§§ 21- 
23). From this expedition he never returned. He 
and his father Nicophemus were suddenly put to 
death at Cyprus without trial (§ 7) ; doubtless on a 
suspicion of treachery or of embezzlement similar to 
that which raised a storm of indignation against 
Thrasybulus and his colleagues in 390 B.C. 

After the death of Aristophanes, one Aeschines origin of 

.. , n . . the Action. 

proposed the confiscation ot his property. The pro- 
posal, like that of Poliochus in the case of the property 
of Eucrates, was resisted on the ground of illegality, 
and a speech was written by Lysias against it. 1 It 
was, however, carried into effect, and so stringently 
that not even the debts left by Aristophanes were 
discharged, nor was the dowry of his widow repaid to 
her family (§ 32). But the amount of property which 
was found disappointed the general belief in the 
wealth of Nicophemus (§§ 11, 53). It was thought 
that something must have been withheld ; and sus- 
picion fell upon the father-in-law of Aristophanes. A 
writ was therefore issued against him for the recovery 
of moneys due to the treasury (§ 11). Before the 
trial came on, he died, at the age of more than seventy 
(§ 60) ; and his only son, a man of thirty (§55), was 
left to defend the action. The Fiscal Board of Syndici 
were the presidents of the court. 

1 Harpocrations.v. Xvrpoi: — Avaias Socratie, against whom Lysias wrote 

iv rtp kclt Alax^ov 7r€pl tt)s %ewews on another occasion. That the pro- 

rCov 'ApLo-Tocfr&vovs XPV^ TWV '■ Sauppe posal of Aeschines was met with a 

0. A. II. p. 173. In his Onommticum ypacpy] irapavofioov is indicated in § 8 

Fragmcntorum Saiippe seems to of Or, xix. 
identify this Aeschines with the 


Date. The date is indicated by § 50. It is there said 

that Diotimus had lately (evayx ^) been accused of 
having forty talents unaccounted for in his possession ; 
but had, on returning to Athens, disproved the charge. 
Diotimus had held a command in the Hellespont in 
388 and 387 * B.C. ; 387 is therefore probably the year 
of the speech. 

Analysis. The defence is approached with timidity, as if under 

the consciousness that a strong prejudice has to he met. 
The speaker represents the gravity of the task which has 
devolved upon him ; his father's good fame, his own, and all 
his fortunes are at stake. He sets forth the restless malice 
of his accusers, and reminds the court that experience has 
proved how little such accusations are to be trusted. 2 The 
cruel fate of Nicophemus and Aristophanes ; — the destitution 
of his brother-in-law's children, and the persecutions to 
which his own family have been exposed in addition to the 
burden thus thrown upon them ; — the current delusions, 
lastly, about the wealth of Nicophemus, delusions so danger- 
ous in the present impoverished state of the Treasury — all 
these are urged as claims to the sympathetic attention of 
the court (§§ 1-11). 

The next division of the speech is devoted to showing 
that Aristophanes was not originally a rich man, and was 
at all times lavish. He was not chosen by the speaker's 
father as a son-in-law on account of his wealth : indeed, his 
last act before sailing for Cyprus was to come to their house 
and borrow seven minae ; and it could be proved that shortly 
afterwards he was in want of a very small sum of ready 

1 Xen. H. v. 1. 25. §§ 1, 6, 7 of Andoc. Be Mi/sterHs, see 

' 2 On the almost verbal coincidence above, p. 115. 
between §§ 2-5 of this proem and 

L YS1A S— WORKS 233 

money. Then follows a formal inventory of the property 
left by the deceased (§§ 12-27). 

But why, it may be asked, was this property so small ? 
Aristophanes had scarcely any fortune until four years before 
his death ; and within these four years he was twice choregus, 
besides buying a house and lands. The defendant had taken 
precautions for the due transference to the Government of 
every article left in the house of Aristophanes : a watch had 
even been set to see that the doors were not torn off, as 
sometimes happened to confiscated houses. He is ready to 
take the most solemn oath before the Syndici that nothing 
remains in his hands ; nay, that his sister's dowry and the 
debt of seven minae still remain unpaid. Supposing that 
the property of Timotheus, son of Conon, were confiscated 
and only four talents realised, would his relatives be thought 
to deserve ruin ? Yet the father of Timotheus was at least 
ten times as rich as the father of Aristophanes (§§ 28-41). 
There are many instances in which the popular estimate of 
a man's fortune has been proved, at his death or on inquiry 
during his lifetime, to have been enormously exaggerated. 
The recent case of Diotimus (§ 50) and the case of the great 
Alcibiades (§ 52) are among those in point (§§ 42-54). 

The good character borne by himself and by his father 
ought to be remembered. If their property were confiscated 
now, the State would not get two talents. At this moment 
he is a trierarch : his father spent his fortune on the State 
and for its honour ; he kept good horses, had athletes in his 
pay, and won victories at the Isthmus and at Nemea (§ 63). 
On all these grounds the defendant claims the protection of 
the court against a malignant attack (§§ 55-64). 

This very clever speech gives a formidable idea of 
the dangers to which an Athenian of the time was 
exposed if he or any member of his family was sup- 


Light posed to have made a fortune on foreign service. 

thrown by 

the speech The city was poor ; 1 it was full of informers, ready 

on a danger . 

of public to prefer any accusation on the chance of sharing the 
abroad. spoil ; and by a vague charge of treachery or em- 
bezzlement abroad it was easy to inflame theecclesia. 2 
There is nothing to show why Aristophanes or his 
father was put to death without trial. The point 
which is most strikingly brought out by this defence 
is the strength of the popular feeling which it had to 
combat. It is remarkable in how diffident a tone the 
speaker begins, how careful he is to put in the front 
of his case everything that can excite compassion, how 
he avoids directly praising or even defending Aris- 
tophanes. He gradually insinuates that Aristophanes 
was a worthy man — poor, but generous and patriotic. 
The speech is nearly half over before it comes directly 
to the real issue (§ 28), and argues that Aristophanes 
cannot, in fact, have left more property than appeared. 
Perhaps the modesty of the speaker is a little over- 
wrought ; but there is consummate art in the sketch 
of his father, the quiet citizen of the old school, and 
of Aristophanes, the adventurous patriot of the new. 
On the whole, this is one of the masterpieces of 
Lysias, in which all the resources of his tact were 
brought into play by a subject difficult enough to be 
worthy of them. 

1 See especially § 11, x a ^ 67rov /mh tion to this Speech (p. 146), aptly 
odv diroXoyeladat irpos cnravi.v dpyvplov quotes Or. xxvu. (Against Epicrates) 
?) vvv £<7tli> ev rrj 7r6Xet. Compare Or. § 11 : ovkstl uov ovtol (the corrupt 
XXX. (Against Mcomachus) § 22, and demagogues) k\€tttovo-i opyi^eade, d\V 
the case of Eratoji (Or. xvil. ) : &v avrol \a/x/3dj>ere x&P LV ^ re > &<nrep 
Francken, Comment. Lysiacae. p. v^eh tcl tovtojv jj.ta6o(popovvT€s dAX' ov 


2 Rauchenstein, in his Introduc- 


3. Against Philocrates [Or. xxix.] — This case m. 3. 
may be regarded as a sequel to that of Ergocles Pmio- 
[Or. xxviii.J. 1 Philocrates had sailed, as steward or 
purser (rapids, § 3), under command of Ergocles as 
trierarch. Ergocles had now been put to death and 
his property had been confiscated. But a sum of 
thirty talents, which he was said to have gained by 
corrupt practices, had not been found (§2). A writ 
was therefore issued against Philocrates on the sup- 
position that, since he had been in the confidence of 
Ergocles, he must know what had become of the 

The speaker is one of several Public Prosecutors 
(a-w^jopot) and, as in the case of Ergocles, merely 
follows others with a summary of the leading points. 
The case Against Philocrates has been stated, and 
the evidence cited, by former speakers ; this is the 
concluding speech for the prosecution ; hence the 
title of epilogue or peroration 2 given in the MSS. to 
this as well as to the speech iVgainst Ergocles. The 
date is probably the year of the trial of Ergocles Date. 
—389 B.C. 

Many persons, says the speaker, who had promised to Anaiysi 
appear against Philocrates have failed ; an additional proof 
that he lias the money, and has been able to buy off numer- 
ous accusers. The thirty talents have not been discovered : 

1 See above, p. 215. est ; statim enim ab initio totidem 

- Kara <&i\ok parous iiriXoyos. The verbis nemineni esse praeter se aecusa- 

speaker says in § 1 that many persons torem orator testatur" {Comment. Lys. 

who had promised to appear against p. 226). The absence of witnesses 

Philocrates have not clone so; but and proofs in this speech is conclusive, 

obviously this does not justify Franc- as Blass says (Att. Bereds. p. 454), on 

ken's inference, — "Altera pars in- the other side, 
scriptionis {ewiXoyos) manifesto falsa 


who can have them but the most intimate friend of Ergocles, 
his subaltern and his steward ? It rests with Philocrates 
to show either that Ergocles was wrongly condemned, or 
that some one else now has the missing sum (§§ 1-5). Three 
talents, it is well known, had been promised to public 
speakers if they could save Ergocles. Philocrates has got 
this money back, and has possessed himself of the rest of 
his late chiefs property ; yet now he has the effrontery 
to pretend that he was his enemy. Is it likely that in that 
case he would have volunteered to sail with him as trierarch ? 

(§§ 6, 7). 

The Athenians ought to defend their own interests, and 
compel Philocrates to give up their property. It is hard if 
those who cannot pay taxes incur the public anger, while 
the embezzlers of State-property escape. Indeed, the accom- 
plices of Ergocles deserve not only a pecuniary penalty, but 
the same punishment which he suffered — death. While his 
trial was pending, his friends went about boasting that they 
had bribed upwards of 2000 men (§ 12). Let it be proved 
to them that no amount of bribery can save evil-doers. If 
the citizens are wise, they will reclaim what is their own 
(§§ 8-14). 

Like the speeches Against Ergocles and Against 
Epicrates, this is the address of an official prosecutor, 
and of one who had but a subordinate part to perform. 
It has the characteristic excellences of the other two, 
compactness and vigour ; but it is necessarily inferior 
to the speech Against Ergocles, in which the greater 
importance of the cause calls forth more oratorical 


IV. Causes relating to a Scrutiny (Soxi/iao-ia) 


1. Aqainst Evandrus. [Dr. xxvi.l — In the second iv. i. 

J L J Againsl 

year of the 99th Olympiad (38| B.C.) Leodamas [ drew 
the lot to be First Archon for the following year ; 
and Evandrus was at the same time designated First 
Archon in reserve. 2 Leodamas, before entering upon 
the archonship, had to pass a scrutiny (potcifiaaia) 
before the Senate. On this occasion he was accused 
by Thrasybulus of Collytus ; the Senate rejected him; 
and the office thus came to Evandrus. But Evandrus 
also had to pass a scrutiny ; and the present speech 
is made to the Senate in order to prove that he is 

The case is heard on the last day but one of 01. Date. 
99. 2, i.e. at about midsummer of our year 382 B.C. 3 
The last day of the Attic year was a public holiday, 
on which no law-court could sit, and on which a 
sacrifice to Zeus Soter was celebrated by the First 
Archon. If, therefore, the Senate rejected Evandrus, 

1 Not the orator of Acharnae, who being registered {iyyeypajjifxev-qs rijs 

was the advocate of Leptines in 355 £x@P as irpfc T ® v dyv-ov). 
B.C., but a man of whom nothing is - eweXaxe: Harpocr. s. v. Cf. 

known except from this speech and Aescli. in Ctes. § 62. 
from a notice in Arist. llh. u. 23. 3 The Olympic year, reckoned from 

Thrasybulus had said in his accusa- July to July, is counted as that year 

tion that the name of Leodamas had b.c. in which its first half falls. The 

been inscribed on a pillar [recording year 382 B.C. comprised the second 

traitors, etc.] on the acropolis (?jv half of 01. 99. 2 and the first half of 

<jTy)\iTT}s yeyovus ev rrj ck'po7r6Aei), but 01. 99. 3. Hence the date of this 

was erased in the time of the Thirty. speech, which belongs to the end of 

Leodamas answered that he was not 01. 99. 2, is, in strictness, 382 B.C. ; 

likely to have erased it then. The and the following Greek year, 01. 99. 

Thirty would have trusted him the 3, in which Evandrus was Archon, is 

more for his enmity to the people also conventionally 382 B.C. 


Arch on in 
382 B.C. 

no time remained for an appeal to an ordinary court ; 
and the State would be left without its chief magis- 
trate at one of its great solemnities (§ 6). 
Evandrus The election of Evandrus was, in fact, ratified ; 

for he appears in the lists as Archon for the following 
year, 01. 99. 3. This date is confirmed by allusions 
in the speech. 

Thrasybulus the Colly tean is charged in § 23 
with having estranged Boeotia from Athens and with 
having lost Athenian ships. The first accusation 
refers to the establishment of oligarchies in the 
Boeotian cities, through Spartan influence, after the 
Peace of Antalcidas ; and is curiously illustrated by 
the reference of Aeschines to Thrasybulus of Collytus 
as a man of great influence at Thebes. 1 The second 
accusation refers to an incident of the war on the 
Hellespont five years before. In 387 B.C. eight 
triremes under the command of this Thrasybulus were 
captured by Antalcidas near Abydus. 2 

All the first part of the speech has been lost in 
those eight pages of the Palatine MS. which contained 
the conclusion of the Twenty-fifth Speech and the 
whole of that Against Nicides. 3 The special charges 
made by the accuser, and the depositions to which he 
alludes (§ 8), were in this part. What remains is 
chiefly his answer to certain pleas which he conceives 
that Evandrus may urge. 

Analysis. It is hard — the speaker says — that, not content with 

1 Aeschin. in Ctcs. § 138. statement (§ 23) that Thrasybulus 

- Xen. Hellm. v. 1. 27. Xeno- betrayed his ships. 

phon's account, it may be observed, :: See p. 195. 

gives no support to the accuser's 


impunity for his offences against the people, Evandrus should 
ask for office. Evandrus relies on the recent sobriety 
(rjo-v^LOTT]^, § 5) of his life — which has been compulsory : 
and on his father's liberality — who used the influence thus 
gained to overthrow the democracy (§§ 1-5). He has con- 
trived to delay his scrutiny until the last day but one of 
the year, when there is no time to appoint another First 
Archon. But the sacrifices of the morrow will surely be 
more pleasing to the gods, though offered only by the King 
Archon and his colleagues, than if the celebrant were a man 
whose hands are stained with the blood shed in the days of 
the Thirty Tyrants (§§ 6—8). One of the principal objects 
of the law of Scrutinies (0 ire pi tmv Bo/ctfiaatcov vopbos, § 9) 
is to exclude from office in a democracy those who have 
abused power under an oligarchy. The mere fact of having 
been an ordinary knight or senator under the Thirty dis- 
qualifies a man for a place in the Council of Five Hundred. 
Evandrus was more than this ; he was guilty of special 
crimes against the people ; and shall he be First Archon ? 
He will thus become a member of the Areiopagus for life, 
and murderers will be tried by a murderer. And this 
through the influence of Thrasybulus, a traitor to Athens. 
It must not be supposed that the speaker opposes Evandrus 
for the sake of Leodamas. Leodamas would be well pleased 
that the Senate should prove itself oligarchical by confirming 
so unpopular an appointment (§§ 10—15). 

Evandrus appeals to the Amnesty [of 403 B.C.]; but 
that Amnesty did not mean that the honours, as well as the 
toleration, of the State should be accorded to its recent 
enemies (§§ 16—20). Let the Senate compare the accuser 
with the advocate of Evandrus. The accuser is pure of all 
connexion with oligarchies ; his ancestors fought against 
the Peisistratidae ; his family have exhausted a large fortune 
upon the State. Thrasybulus has alienated the Boeotians 
from Athens ; has lost her ships, and brought her to despair. 


If the Court reflects which of these two men ought rather 
to prevail, it will decide rightly upon the claims of Evandrus 
(§§ 21-24). 

Unwillingness to mar a great annual festival may 

have influenced the Senate when they confirmed the 

election ; but there is no proof that the grounds upon 

which it was opposed were good. The accuser must 

Tone of have felt that his case was well-nigh hopeless. This, 

the Speech. 

and the feeling of Lysias himself towards all who had 
been concerned in the violence of the Anarchy, will 
partly account for the extreme bitterness and unfair- 
ness of this speech. In two places the tone is especi- 
ally marked. First, where the accuser admits that 
since the restoration of the democracy Evandrus has 
been a thoroughly good citizen, and then argues that 
he deserves no credit for it (§§ 3-5) ; again, where lie 
maintains that the clokimasia was instituted for the 
express purpose of keeping oligarchs out of office 
(§ 9). The outburst against Thrasybulus at the end 
is of a piece with this (§ 23). A certain boldness of 
expression, hardly congenial to Lysias, corresponds 
with the excited tone of the speech, 1 which has the 
air of having been written in haste, to support a cause 
already desperate. 
iv. 2. For 2. For Mantitheus. [Or. xvi.] — The name occurs 

tiieus. only in the title, which, contrary to the general rule. 
is perhaps of the same age as the speech — " A Defence 
for Mantitheus on his Scrutiny before the Senate." 
What the office was to which this scrutiny related, 
can only be guessed ; perhaps it was that of an 
ordinary senator, since in § 8 the speaker cites in- 

1 See especially §§ 3, 4. 


stances of persons who had really done what he is 
charged with doing, and had yet been admitted to 
the Senate. The complaint against him w T as that his 
name appeared on the list (cavk, cf. § 6) of those who 
had served as Knights in the time of the Thirty. As 
the speech Against Evandrus shows (§ 10), the fact 
of such service under the Tyrants became, after -the 
restoration of the democracy, a disqualification for the 
office of senator. Mantitheus must, then, have been 
at least eighteen years of age in 405 B.C., and so must 
have been born before 422. He refers to his share 
in campaigns subsequent to that of 394 B.C. (§§ 15-18). 
On the other hand, the tone of the joke in § 15 rather 
suggests that Thrasybulus, its object, was still alive ; — 
that is, that the speech is earlier than 389 B.C. 1 The Date. 
date may have been about 392 B.C. The speaker, who 
was taunted with youthful presumption (§ 20), cannot 
have been much more than thirty. 

The speaker first disproves the charge against him of Analysis. 
having served as a Knight under the Thirty Tyrants. Before 
the disaster on the Hellespont [405 B.C.], his father had 
sent him and his brother to the Euxine, to Satyrus [king of 
the Cimmerian Bosporus] ; and they did not return to Athens 
till five days before the democratic exiles captured the 
Peiraeus [404 B.C.] (§ 4). The appearance of his name upon 
the list of Knights at that time proves nothing ; the list 
has many false entries and many omissions. Here is a 
better proof on the other side : — When the democracy was 
restored, the phylarch (captain of cavalry) of each tribe was 
directed to recover from each Knight who had served under 

1 .Thrasybulus died in 01. 97. 3 as Clinton (F. H.) says, in the early 
(Diocl. xiv. 94, 99 : Xen. Hellen. iv. part of 389. 
8. 30), i.e. 390-389 B.C. : probably, 




the Tyrants the sum paid to him by the Slate for his eQuipment 
when he was first enrolled (Kardaraat^, § 6). Now Manti- 
theus was never called upon to refund, nor brought before 
the Fiscal Board (crvvBifcoc, § 7) — (§§ 1-8). 

Having disproved the charge against him, he goes on to 
urge his positive merits. His private life has been blame- 
less. After his father's death, he portioned his two sisters 
and helped his brother. Men who are fond of dice and 
wine have a marked aversion to him (§ 11). Then his 
public services have been constant. He volunteered on the 
expedition for the relief of Haliartus [395 B.C.] (g 13). In 
the next year he fouo-ht in the disastrous battle of Corinth, 
and retreated later than " the majestic Steirian [Thrasybulus], 
who has taunted all the world with cowardice" (§ 15). In 
the autumn of the same year [394 B.C.] he and his company 
volunteered for service against Agesilaus in Boeotia. Since 
then, he has constantly served in the field or in garrison 

(§ 18)— (§§ 9 ~ 19 )- 

Some have taunted him with forwardness because, 
though so young, he has spoken in the ecclesia, His own 
affairs, however, compelled him to do so at first. Perhaps, 
indeed, he has been too ambitious. But he could not help 
thinking of his forefathers, who had always been in public 
life and served the State ; and he saw that Athenians, to 
tell the truth, respected none but those who could act and 
speak for the city. '■ And why should you be annoyed with 
such men ? You yourselves and none else are their judges " 
(§§ 20, 21). 

Tlie char- 
acter of 

Perhaps hardly anything in Greek literature has 
a fresher or brighter charm than this short speech 
— the natural, wonderfully vivid expression of an 
attractive character. Mantitheus is the brilliant, 
ambitious young Athenian, burning to fulfil the 
Homeric ideal by distinguishing himself in council as 


V. o. 


in war ; an Alcibiades made harmless by the sentiment 
of chivalry. The general tone of simple self-reliance, 
and possibly the gibe at Thrasybulus, may have been 
found refreshing by elderly senators. Mantitheus 
had really done good service in the field ; and his 
statement of this is followed by an ingenuous apology 
for over-eagerness to shine in the ecclesia. The last 
passage is masterly. The virtue of " minding one's 
own affairs " {anrpa^fioavvri) was often praised at 
Athens ; but Mantitheus goes to the centre of 
Athenian instincts when he tells the judges that " to 
say the truth " they respect no men who do not take 
part in public life. 1 

3. Against Philon. [Or. xxxi.J — This speech may 
be considered as a companion-piece to the last ; being Pinion. 
an Accusation, as the other is probably a Defence, at 
a dokimasia for the Senate. Philon — a man otherwise 
unknown — had been chosen by lot a member of the 
Senate of Five Hundred ; and had appeared before 
that body, with others designated to places in it, in 
order to pass the scrutiny. The speaker, himself a 
senator, comes forward to oppose the admission of 
Philon. The date cannot be fixed. Philon is accused 
of having gone about Attica, plundering " the oldest 
of the citizens," who had stayed quietly in their 
demes (8 18) ; and some of these citizens were still Probable 

Vt5 } date. 

alive : some time between 404 and 395 B.C. may 
therefore be assumed. 

1 The speech is described by Dobree does no justice to the delicacy of the* 

{Adv. 1. 192) as " vividis et paene delineation. "Ex verbis Dobrei 

comicis coloribus expriniens arpanct- alteram quendam Pyrgopolinicen ex- 

tlki)v avdadeLav ea sinml arte ut hoc pectes," as Franeken says {Comment. 

ipso placeat" — a description which Lys. p. 118). 


Analysis. The speaker begins by protesting that no private enmity, 

but only regard to his oath as senator, induces him to appear 
against Philon. What is the definition of a worthy senator ? 
One who both is, and desires to be, a citizen (§5). Now 
when the troubles came on Athens [405 B.C.], Philon proved 
how little he valued his citizenship. He neither stayed with 
the oligarchs in the town, nor joined the exiles at Phyle, 
but went to Oropus — paid the resident-alien's tax, and lived 
under the protection of a patron. This shall be proved by 
witnesses (§§ 1-14). If he says that he was unfit for fight- 
ing, it can be shown that his name does not appear among 
those of the citizens who, instead of personal service, paid 
money or armed their demesmen (§§ 15, 16). Nor was he 
merely passive : he did positive wrong to aged citizens of 
Athens whom he met with in the country (§§ 17—19). This 
corresponds with his treatment of his own mother, who trans- 
ferred the keeping of her money from her son to a stranger 
(§§ 20-23). Why should such as he be a senator ? The 
betrayer of a garrison, a fleet, or a camp is punished ; but 
Philon has betrayed the State itself (§§ 24-26). 

" He has broken no law," he says. No : for an offence 
so enormous was never expressly contemplated by any 
legislator (§§ 27, 28). If the aliens who helped Athens in 
her need were honoured, surely the citizens who abandoned 
her should be disgraced. The advocates who claim honour 
for Philon now would have done better had they advised 
him to deserve it then (§§ 29—33). Let each senator 
ask himself why he was admitted to that dignity, and he 
will see why Philon ought to be shut out from it (§ 34). 

The attack The tone of this address is in contrast with that 

temperate, of the protest against the election of Evandrus : it is 

severe and decided, but not bitter or unfair. A 

character which seems to have been really contemptible 

is drawn without passion, each statement being sup- 


ported by evidence ; and the assertion of the speaker, 
that only a sense of duty prompted him to accuse, is 
at least not contradicted by his method. The style 
is rhetorical, and rather more openly artificial than 
is usual with Lysias (see esp. §§ 11, 32) ; but it has 
all his compactness and force — of which the short 
appeal at the end is a good example. One point of Allusion to 

• -ni «i i* the crime of 

historical interest comes out. Philon is accused 01 Neutrality. 
having taken part, in 405 B.C., neither with oligarchs 
nor with democrats. He pleads : — " Had it been an 
offence not to be present at such a time, a law would 
have been made expressly on that subject." The 
answer is, that, owing to the inconceivable enormity 
of the offence, no law has been enacted on the sub- 
ject (§ 27). So completely had Solon's enactment 
against neutrality — -to which the speaker could have 
appealed with so much rhetorical effect — passed out 
of the remembrance of that generation. 1 

4. Defence on a Charge of seeking to abolish the iv. 4. De 

fence on a 

Democracy. [Or. xxv.J — This title, given to the charge of 
speech in the MSS., is clearly wrong. The speaker abolish 

, -. . ., the Demo- 

is, indeed, chiefly concerned to prove that lie is guilt- cracy. 
less of any share in the crimes of the Thirty Tyrants ; 
but it is clear that he was not upon his trial for high 
treason. There is no reference to any penalties which 

1 Rauchenstein, in his introduc- atque discessio populi in duas partes 

tion to the speech (p. 116), brings fieret et ob cam caussam irritatis 

together the chief passages in which animis utrinque arma caperentur 

Solon's law is mentioned : — Pint. pugnareturquc, turn qui in eo tempore 

Sol. c. 20 {arifiov elvcu top ev <7tol(T€l in eoque casu civilis discordiae non 

fjLrjderepas luepidos yeuofievou) : Cic. alterutri parti se , adiunxerit sed 

ad Att. x. 1 : Gellius 11. 12 (trans- solitarius separatnsqne a communi 

lating an extract from Aristotle — malo civitatis secesserit, is domo 

perhaps from his -ko\it&<xi) si ob haiw patria fortimisque omnibus careto, 

discordiam dissensioncmque seditio exul extorrisque esto. 


threatened him. The question is whether he shall, 

or shall not, be admitted to certain privileges. Thus 

in § 3 he insists on his claim to participation in the 

advantages of citizenship ; in § 4 he speaks of rights 

which citizens who have done no evil ought to share 

with positive benefactors of the State ; in § 14 he 

says to the judges: — "If, when I might have had 

office, I declined it, I have a right to receive honour 

The speech from you now" Clearly this speech was delivered on 

nectedwith the occasion of a dokimasia for some office to which 

inasia. the speaker had been designated, but his admission 

to which w T as opposed. The cause is heard by an 

ordinary court — probably under the presidency of the 

Thesmothetae l — and on appeal from a decision for 

Date. the speaker already given by the Senate. The date 

must be placed between 402 and 400 B.C. ; probably 

nearer to the lower limit. 2 The accusers were Epi- 

genes, Diophanes and Cleisthenes (§ 25). The 

defendant is not named. 

1 Since the Thesmothetae had soon after the restoration of the 
jurisdiction in causes connected with democracy, providing that persons 
SoKifiaa-iai : Pollux 8. 44. against whom, in despite of the 

2 Rauchenstein (Introduct. p. 91) Amnesty, accusations were brought 
supposes 402 B.C. ; Blass {AM. Be- in violation of the Amnesty, should 
reds. p. 509) prefers 401 or 400. be allowed at once to enter a -rrapa- 

The arguments for the earlier date ypci(pr}, and to speak first at its hear- 

are these : — (1) The general tone of ing (Isoer. Call. § 2). 

the speech, referring to the troubles For the later date it is argued (1) 

of the Anarchy as recent : (2) § 17, that in one place at least — § 21 — the 

where the speaker says irpodv/jL 77 cro/j. at events under the Thirty are spoken 

Xprjarbs ehai — as if he had not yet of as if some considerable interval 

had time to prove his reformed had elapsed : (2) that the restored 

character : (3) §§ 23-24, where the democracy was old enough for abuses 

exiled adherents of the Thirty are to have grown up, — § 30 [this is, I 

described as still hoping for a re- think, a strong point] : (3) that § 28 

action at Athens : (4) § 28, from does not prove the law of Archinus 

which (Rauchenstein thinks) it to be non-existent, since that law 

appears that the law of Archinus would have had no bearing on a 

was not yet passed — a law enacted doKL/xaaia. 


It would not be strange, lie says, if the speeches made Analysis. 
against him had excited the indignation of the judges against 
all, without distinction, who had remained at Athens under 
the Thirty. Much more might, indeed, have been said about 
the crimes of the Tyrants. But it is unmeaning to charge 
those crimes upon men who had no share in them. If he 
can prove that lie is innocent, he may surely claim at least 
the ordinary privileges of citizenship in common with men 
of more distinguished services (§§ 1-6). No man is born 
an oligarch or a democrat. He becomes one or the other 
according to his private interest (tcop ISia o-vfifepovTcov, § 10). 
This is proved by history. Phrynichus and Peisander were 
demagogues before they become oligarchs. Men who helped 
to overthrow the Four Hundred were afterwards numbered 
with the Thirty : many of the Four Hundred themselves 
were with the democrats at the Peiraeus ; some of those 
who had expelled the Four Hundred were afterwards among 
the Thirty ; and some of the men who gave in their names 
for the march against Eleusis, after going forth with the 
people, were besieged along with the Tyrants. 1 

The explanation is simply that their interests varied 
at different times. Now, the interest of the speaker lay 
wholly with the democracy. He had been five times trierarch 
and had been in four sea-fights (S 12). The establishment 

1 § 9 eial 8e dinves tiov "EAei<- deserted to the Tyrants — in which 

a airoypaxf/afievojv, e£e\- ease e^eXOovres means "having 

dovres fie 6' vfxCov, eiroXiopKovvTO marched out": or (2) men who, 

tier clvtwv. The Thirty Tyrants, having been driven from Athens by 

when their government fell and was the Thirty, remained in Attica, and, 

succeeded by that of the Ten, with- instead of joining the democrats, 

drew to Eleusis. After the restora- joined the tyrants at Eleusis— in 

tion of the democracy, an expedition which case i^eXOovres means ''having 

was made from Athens against left Athens" under stress of the 

Eleusis, and they were dislodged : Tyranny. I prefer the former view 

Xen. Hell. n. iv. 39, 43. as giving (a) a clearer meaning to 

The question is, whether ol 'EXfi;- diroypaxf/afjievcju, (b) a clearer contrast 

aiuade d7roypa\pd/nevoL are (1) men between i^eXdovres /xe0' vja&v and 

who enrolled themselves at Athens eiroXiopKovvTo fier 1 clvt&v. 

for this expedition, but afterwards 


of the Thirty destroyed his chance of reward for these services. 
Neither under the First Oligarchy nor under the Second did 
he hold office (§§ 7-14). If he did no wrong in the 
Anarchy, much more will he be a good citizen under the 
restored Democracy. The victims of the Tyrants must not 
be confounded with their agents. It was the error of the 
Thirty that they visited the sins of a few corrupt demagogues 
on all the citizens : let not the people so err now (§§ 15-20). 
Dissensions among the Thirty gave the exiles their first 
hopes of success ; let not disunion in the democracy now 
give occasion to the enemies of Athens, but let the oaths of 
amnesty be kept towards all (§§ 21-24). After the fall of 
the Four Hundred, the rigours which bad advisers caused to 
be adopted against their political opponents brought the city 
to ruin. And now sycophants, counselling a revengeful 
policy, oppose themselves to the views of those who were 
really active in restoring the democracy. Such men show 
what they would have been had they shared the power of 
the Thirty. The friends of the city advise differently. Let 
the Amnesty hold good for all. When those who are really 
answerable for the past troubles are brought to account, 
severity is excusable ; but innocent men must not be mixed 
up with them (§§ 25-35). 

The speaker had evidently been closely connected 
with the party of the Tyrants ; for though he states 
his services to the democracy before 405 B.C., of his 
political character since that time he has nothing 
better to say than that it has been harmless ; indeed, 
he implies a contrast between himself and those who 
The Speech had been true to the democracy at its need (§ 4). It 
praised. is hard to understand the high praise which has been 
given to this speech by some critics of Lysias ; 3 it 

1 As by Reiske ("egregia, lucu- Or.Att.\. p. 759) : and by Francken 
lenta, Lysiae nomine dignissima," {Comment, Lys. p. 184). 


is barely conceivable that one of the ablest of them 
should count it his best work. 1 The speaker s inter- 
pretation of the Amnesty is, indeed, larger and truer 
than the opposite view taken by the accuser of 
Evandrus ; 2 and his elaborate exposition of the 
doctrine that political creed is purely an affair of 
self-interest may claim the praise of candour. The 
style has vigour, but neither brilliancy nor dignity ; 
and the ethos of the speaker, as a moderately in- 
telligent and thoroughly practical man, can scarcely 
be accounted persuasive. 3 

5. For the Invalid. TOr. xxiv.l — This speech iv. 5. For 

L J x the Invalid. 

may conveniently be classed with the four preceding, 
since it was written for a dokimasia, although the 
scrutiny in this case was of a different kind. At 

Athens a certain allowance was made by the State to Public 

J Charity at 

the aZvvcLToi : 4 that is, to persons who were unable, Athens. 
through bodily ailment, to earn a livelihood, 
and who had less than three minae of private 
property. Once a year, or perhaps oftener, the list 
of applicants for such relief was scrutinised by the 
Senate 5 and then passed by the ecclesia (§ 22). It 
is on the occasion of such a scrutiny that the present 

1 "Lysiam relegenti videtur haec 4 It is not clear whether the term 
oratio esse omnium optima," Do- abvvaros. in this technical sense, 
bree, Adv. 1. 247. referred only to bodily infirmity, or 

2 Or. xxyi. §§ 16-20 : see above, included (as Francken thinks, p. 171 
p. 244. 11.) also the idea of poverty. The 

3 It is difficult not to suspect that Invalid was said by his adversary (1) 
Lysias — himself a loyal friend of the ry crc6/xart dvvaadai /cat ovk ehai ruv 
democracy in two disasters — wrote abvv&Tuv, § 4, and (2) dvvaadat 
this defence of easy tergiversation avvelvai bvva^evois avOpwirois ava- 
with deliberate, though disguised, XlaKeiv, § 5. a phrase evidently as an 
irony ; irony which perhaps ran no antithesis — possibly humorous — to 
danger from the acuteness of his advvaros. 

client. '"' Aeschin. in Timarch. § 104. 



speech is made. The speaker had for years (§ 8) been 
in receipt of an obol daily (§ 26) from the State ; but 
lately it had been attempted to show that he was not 
entitled to public relief. This objection is termed in 
the title to the speech (not in the speech itself) an 
eisangelia; but had, of course, nothing in common 
with eisangeliae technically so called except that it 
was an accusation laid immediately before the Senate. 
The date appears from § 25 to have been later than 
403 B.C. 

Analysis. Having premised that jealousy is the only conceivable 

motive for this attack upon him, the speaker comes to the two 
objections which have been made to his receiving the public 
alms : — that he is not really a cripple ; and that he has a 
trade (§§ 1-4). He answers the second objection first (§§ 5-9) ; 
and then refutes the other with a good deal of grim humour 
(§§ 10-14). Lastly, he defends his general character 
(§§ 15-20), and concludes with an entreaty not to be deprived 
of his obol a day (§§ 21-27). 

No ground Harpocration seems l to have doubted the genuine- 
ness of this speech ; possibly on the ground taken by 
Boeckh 2 — that Lysias would not have written, nor 
the Senate endured, so elaborate an address on such 
a subject. This seems a most unsafe argument against 

ing the 


1 seems, for his words are (s. v. 
adtivaros), cart 5e real \6yos tls <hs 
Xvalov irepl tov ddvvdrov : some MSS. 
having cos ~\eyeTcu Xvalov (Blass, Att. 
Berecls. p. 648). 

" Staatsh. i. p. 260 ff. referred to 
by Blass I. c. Blass classes this speech 
with such "bagatelle" speeches as 
\6yos irepl tt]S eyyvdrjtcrjs, \6yos irepl 
tov xpvvw rplirodos, etc., ascribed to 
Lysias ; and remarks that all such 

trifles, without distinction, were held 
spurious by the old critics, whom 
Harpocration and Athenaeus follow. 
But it should be noticed that Athen- 
aeus, while he adds el yvrjaios to his 
mention of the irepl rod XP- rpiirodos 
(vi. p. 231 e), only says of the irepl 
ttjs eyy vdrjKTjs that it is "ascribed" 
to Lysias— acquiescing, apparently, 
in the ascription (v. p. 209 f). 


a composition excellent of its kind, and excellent in a 
way suggestive of Lysias. The humour, broad, but 
stopping short of burlesque, exactly suits the con- 
dition of the speaker ; and there is true art in the 
ironical pathos of the invalid, when, using an Attic 
illustration, he remarks that his infirmity is disputed 
with him by his adversary as eagerly as if it were an 
heiress (§ 14). 

V. Causes relating to Military Offences 

(Xnrora^iov — acrrpcLTeias) 

1. Against Alcibiades, on a Charge of Desertion v. 1. 

rrx -, Against 

[Ur. XIV. J. Alcibiades, 

2. Against Alcibiades, on a Charge of Failure to i Against 

a r/\ i Alcibiades, 

Serve [Or. xv.J. „. 

These speeches do not refer to two distinct accusa- The two 
tions, but are merely two different ways of stating concern the 
the same accusation. Alcibiades, son of the famous " a 
Alcibiades, had taken part in the expedition sent 
from Athens to the relief of Haliartus when Boeotia 
was invaded by Lysander in 395 B.C. But, instead 
of serving with the heavy-armed infantry, he had 
chosen to serve with the cavalry, although he had 
not passed the scrutiny (dokimasia) required before 
enrolment among the Knights. His accusers might 
have indicted him under a special law which attached 
the penalty of disfranchisement to such a fraud (Or. 
xiv. § 8). They preferred, however, to bring against 
him a more invidious charge — desertion of military 

The principal military offences were dealt with at 


Law about Athens by one law. Under this law a citizen was 


offences, liable to indictment and if convicted to disfranchise- 
ment for 1. Failure to join the army — ao-r pare las : 
2. Cowardice in battle — SecXlas : 3. Desertion of his 
post — Xlttotcl^lov. This third term properly denoted 
an offence distinct from the other two. But it was 
sometimes so extended as to include either of the 
other two. 1 Now Alcibiades had served, indeed, but 
had not served with the hoplites. His offence, then, 
might be looked at from two points of view. He 
might be considered as a man who, on service, had 
been found out of his place, and who was liable to 
an indictment for Desertion of his Post — ypa<j>ij 
\L7Tora^Lov. Or he might be considered as a man who 
had never been present in his place, and who was 
liable to an indictment for Failure to Serve — ypa^y 
ao-rparelas. The First Sj^eech takes the former point 
of view ; the Second takes the latter. 

Date. The date and occasion of the speeches are not 

directly indicated, but can be determined almost 
certainly. This was the first military trial since " the 

1 It does not appear quite certain relets — Xnrora^lov — pKpBhrwv (the last 
whether there was a ypacprj detXias equivalent to deiXLas) may be sup- 
distinct from a ypcMprj Xlttotol^lov. posed to correspond to a like dis- 
In § 6 of the First Speech Against tinction in the actual Attic law. 
Alcibiades they appear to be identi- Obviously a ypcupi] \nroTa£iov might 
tied. But in the following passages be needed for cases in which a ypacph 
(among others) they are distin- 8eiXias could not be preferred. On 
guished : — Aeschin. in Ctcs. § 175 the other hand, the ypacpTj XuroTa'^Lov 
'ZbXwv — ivToisavTois €TriTLfjLloLS$€Todeiv might probably include the case of 
evex^ffOai top d<iT pdrevrov /ecu rbv darparela : just as the 8lkij XirrojiapTv- 
\e\onroTa ttjv rd^iv teal rbv deiXbv piov (compared by Francken, Comment. 
6 /hollos: Andoc. de Myst. § 73 biroaoi Lys. p. Ill) lay against a man who 
Xi-rroiev ttjv rd^iv i) darparelas rj refused to give evidence ; not merely 
8eiXias 7) dvavfiaxiov ocpXoiev i) ttjv against one who, having undertaken 
d<nri8a dirofidXoiev : and Plato's dis- to do so, failed to appear. 
tinction (Legg. xii. 943 f) of durpo- 


peace " (xiv. § 4); — a campaign had just taken place, 
but no battle had been fought (§ 5), though the 
generals had given satisfaction to the State (xv. 
§ 1). All this corresponds with the campaign of 
the year 395. It was the first since the peace, or 
rather truce, with Sparta in the spring of 404. 
No battle had been fought, because, before the 
Athenian force arrived at Haliartus, the Lacedae- 
monians had already been defeated, and Lysander 
slain. The Athenian Generals had only to assist at 
the arrangement of the humiliating truce under which 
Pausanias led his army out of Boeotia. 1 In 395 B.C. 
the younger Alcibiades must have been about twenty 
years of age. 2 

The Court was composed of soldiers (o-rpancoTa^ 
Sc/ed&Lv, Or. xiv. § 5), the Generals presiding (r&v 
arparyycov Seo/iac, xv. l). Archestratides, the chief 
accuser, had opened the cause and produced the 
evidence ; these two speakers are his friends and 
supporters. (Or. xiv. 3; xv. 12.) 

The accuser explains his appearance in that capacity. Analysis. 
An explanation is, indeed, hardly necessary, considering the ^^ 
character of Alcibiades; but in his own case a feud in- 
herited from his father supplies a special motive (§§ 1-3). 
He then addresses himself to a technical point. The law 
against Desertion is so worded (it has been argued) that 
it does not apply where there has been no battle. He 
answers that one of the two offences which that law con- 
templates — namely Failure to Serve — is manifestly proved 

1 Xen. Hellen, in. v. 16. Alcibiades was born in, or just before, 

2 Since from Isocr. tic Bigis {Or. 415 B.C. 
xvi. ) § 45 it appears that the younger 


against Alcibiades, who did not take his place anion r>- the 
hoplites. Of the other offence — Desertion of his Post 
through cowardice — he is virtually guilty, since his reason 
for preferring to serve with the cavalry was that there he 
would run less risk. Others, who were really knights, 
waived their privilege in this instance, 1 and served as 
hoplites. Alcibiades seized a privilege to which he had no 
claim (§ 10). Such audacity must be punished for public 
example. Let the soldiers who sit in judgment remember 
how much each of them sacrificed to his duty, and 
then decide what punishment is merited by such con- 
tempt of duty (§§ 4-15). The advocates of Alcibiades will 
plead his youth and his parentage. Neither his own nor 
his father's character deserves sympathy. If relatives 
plead for him, it is they who ought to have restrained 
him; if officials, they must show that he is legally innocent 
(§§ 16-22). 

Then follows a bitter attack upon the defendant and his 
father. Alcibiades the younger is described as vicious from 
his youth, and as a traitor to his own father;' all the 
treasons of the elder Alcibiades are recounted at length. 
He prompted the Spartan occupation of Deceleia — 
incited Chios to revolt — he preferred a home ev 
Thrace to Athens. He betrayed the Athenian fleet to 
Lysander : both his great-grandfathers, Megacles and Alci- 
biades, were ostracised (§§ 23-40). An attack on the family 
in their private relations, as stained with every impurity 

1 This statement is exactly ilhis- 2 An allusion in § 26 is obacuiv. 

trated by the Speech For Mantitheus It is said that the younger Alcibiades 

(Or. xv I ) § 12, where Mantitheus, pcera Qeorifiov eiriPovXeticras tlo war pi 

speaking of this very expedition to 'Qpeobs irpovbwKev. Franckcn sug- 

Haliartus, says \— 'AXiaprov gests 'Opveds (the town in the Argeia) ; 

e8ei fio-qdeiv, virb 'QpdofioiXov KareiXey- and thinks that the young Alcibiades 

fievos iirireveiv,...€Tep<j)v avafiavrwv may have had something to do with 

tirl rovs Lirwovs ddoKLfxdarooi' a betrayal of that place to the Lace - 

Trapa rbv vb\xov eyu irpoffeXOuv daemonians in 416 i;.c\ : et. Thuo. 

e<f>Tjv rep 'Qpdo(3ovXip i^aXelxpai /-e VI. 7 [Comment. Lys. p. 106), 
e/c rov KaraXoyov. 


"en in 


and impiety, leads to the conclusion. Much, the accuser 
says, has been omitted : the judges must imagine it. He 
then causes to be read the laws on which he relies ; the 
judicial oath: and the indictment (§g 41-47). 

The Generals, the presidents of the Court, say that they Second 
allowed Alcibiades as a special favour to serve with the 
cavalry. Why, in that case, was he rejected by the 
phylarch of his own tribe, and not struck off the list of 
hoplites by the taxiarch ? Why, when he took the field, 
was he treated with scorn by all the knights, and driven to 
place himself among the mounted bowmen ? It is strange 
if the Generals can enrol a man among the knights at their 
pleasure, when they cannot so enrol him among the hoplites. 
If, however, the Generals have exceeded their real powers, 
then the Court cannot recognise their arbitrary act (§§ 1—8). 
The law is, indeed, severe : but the judges must administer 
it as unflinchingly as if they were marching against the 
enemy (§§ 9-12). 

The first, especially, of these two speeches should, reeling 
be compared with the Defence written shortly before eider Aici- 
by Isocrates — probably in 397 or 396 B.C. — for the 
same man. Both bear striking witness to the hatred 
felt for the memory of the elder Alcibiades in the 
early years of the restored democracy. Here, de- 
nunciations of the father fill about one-half of the 
speech against the son ; there, the son devotes more 
than three-fourths of his address to a defence of his 
father. The speech Against Alcibiades ascribed to 
Andocides, but probably the work of a late sophist, 
indirectly illustrates the same feeling ; being, in fact, 
an epitome of the scandalous stories about Alcibiades 
current at the same period. 



of the 
ness — not 

Harpocration refers to Oration xiv. with a doubt 
of its authenticity ; 1 Oration xv. is cited by no 
ancient author. The genuineness of each has been 
called in question by modern critics ; 2 chiefly on 
grounds of internal evidence. It has been noticed 
that the composition varies in some points from the 
usual Lysian character ; and that the special marks 
of his power are absent. 3 The two speeches must 
stand or fall together. If not the work of Lysias, 
they are certainly the work of a contemporary writer 
for the law- courts. But the evidence, external or 
internal, against their genuineness appears too slight 
to warrant even a strong suspicion. 

VI. 1. 


VI. Causes relating to Murder or Intent to 

MURDER (ypacjyal (frovov — rpav/xaro^ i/c irpovoias) 

1. Against Eratosthenes. [Or. xn.] — Polemar- 
chus, brother of Lysias, had been put to death by 
the Thirty Tyrants. Eratosthenes, one of their 
number, was the man who had arrested him and 
taken him to prison. In this speech Lysias, himself 
the speaker, charges Eratosthenes with the murder 
of Polemarchus, and, generally, with his share in 
the Tyranny. 

1 ,s. V. 'AX/ci/Stao???. 

2 See Francken {Comment. Lys. pp. 
110-115), who refers to the doubts of 
Boeckh and others, but himself ex- 
presses positive suspicion only of Or. 
xv: B\'diis(AU. Bereds. pp. 491-4), who 
adds Scheibe to the sceptics, and him- 
self inclines to doubt both speeches ; 
though allowing, with Francken, 
that they certainly are not mere 
sophistic exercises. Taylor thought 
the second spurious (Reiske Or. Att. 

v. 553). 

3 Blass notices especially the heap- 
ing together of homoioteleuta in §§41 
and 35. Markland observes on Or. 
XIV § 4.7, /aeydXr] 5' evrvx^ to tolovtgji> 
ttoXltoov a7raX\ayr}vcu iroXei, " hi non 
sunt numeri Lysiani : ille potius 
scripsisset fieydXt] <5' evrvxlo. rrj 7r6Xet 
ToiovTCov 7to\lt<x>v cL-KoXkoLyrjv cu (ap. 
Reiske 0. A. v. 553). The absence 
of fjdos and x&P ls ^ the more general 
accusation — a vague one. 


A question has to be considered in regard to Form of 


the form of the accusation. Was Eratosthenes pro- 
secuted under an ordinary indictment for murder? 
Or was he accused on the occasion of his coming 
forward to render account of his office as one of the 
Thirty ? 

On the former supposition it is hard to say before 
what court the trial took place. Clearly it was not 
the Areiopagus. If it was the Delphinion, then 
Eratosthenes must have pleaded some justification 
of the homicide ; but he admits its guilt, and lays 
the blame on his colleagues (§ 24). If it was an 
ordinary heliastic court under the presidency of 
the Eleven, then there must have been an arrest 
(airaycoy^) by the Eleven ; but this does not seem 
to have taken place. 1 

The other supposition offers less difficulty. A 
special clause in the Amnesty of 403 B.C. excluded 
the Thirty Tyrants, the Ten who had succeeded 
them, and the Eleven who had served them. But 
any one even of these might enjoy the Amnesty if 
he chose to stand a public inquiry, and was acquitted. 2 
When the oligarchy was finally overthrown, Pheidon 

1 The arguments against the hypo- Amnesty of the Thirty, the Eleven, 

thesis of an ordinary ypacpi] cpovov are and " the Ten who had ruled in the 

well given by Blass (Att. Ber. pp. Peiraeus." Andocides (Be Myst. § 

540-1.). Scheibe (ib.) thinks that the 90) gives the words of the Amnesty : 

trial was " fortasse apud heliastas ad koX ov /ivvaLKaKrjau) t&v tto\it&i> ovoevi, 

Delphinium " ; Rauchenstein appar- 7rA?> tCov rpiaKovra /cat tui> Meica [/cat 

ently (Introd. p. 16) before an ordi- tG>v Uko]' ovU tovtwv 6s av ide\r) 

nary heliastic court. Francken also evOuvas dtdovai rrjs dpxvs ^s ^ev. 

(Comment . Lys. p. 79) seems to reject Francken cannot be right in referring 

the idea of an accusation at the roinwv here to r(bv evdeicci only (Co m- 


ment. Lys. p. 79). The words rcov 
2 Xenophon (Hellen. 11. iv. 38) 5e/ca are added by Sauppe and Baiter 

mentions the exclusion from the with Schneider and others. 


and Eratosthenes were the only members 1 of it who 
stayed at Athens. As they dared to do this, they 
must have availed themselves of the permission to 
give account of their office. And Lysias could have 
had no better opportunity for preferring his accusa- 
tion than that which would ,be given by the public 
inquiry into the conduct of Eratosthenes. Two 
things in the sjDeech itself tend to show that it 
was spoken on this occasion. First, its general 
scope. It has a wider range, and deals more 
generally with the history of the Anarchy, than 
would be natural if it was concerned exclusively with 
an ordinary indictment for murder. Only the first 
third of the speech relates to Polemarchus ; thence- 
forth to the end his name is not mentioned, even 
in the peroration ; the political offences of Era- 
tosthenes are exclusively dwelt upon. It may be 
noticed, too, that at the commencement Lysias speaks 
in the plural of " the defendants " and their hostility 
to Athens, as if Eratosthenes was only in the same 
predicament with several other persons. Secondly, 
an expression in § 37 should be noticed. The 
speaker there says that he has clone enough in 
having shown that the guilt of the accused reaches 
the point at which death is deserved. He would not 
have said this if death had been the necessary penalty 
in case of conviction. But he might well say it 
if his charge Avas preferred, among many others, 
when Eratosthenes was giving his account, and when 

1 Pheidon had been one of the Thirty, but not one of the Ten. This 
Thirty and also one of the Ten. is elear from §§ 54, 55. 
Eratosthenes had been one of the 

L YSIA S — WORKS 2 5 9 

the question was what degree of punishment, if any. 
he was to suffer. 1 

The date must be 403 B.C., the year of Eucleides. Date 
After their flight from Athens the Thirty maintained 
themselves for a short time at Eleusis. Soon after 
the restoration of the democracy, an expedition was 
made against Eleusis ; the generals of the Thirty, 
who came out to ask for a parley, were seized and 
put to death ; and the Tyrants, with their chief 
adherents, fled from Attica. 2 But it is clear from 
§ 80 of the speech that this expedition had not 
yet taken place. 

Again, in §§ 92 f. Lysias addresses successively 
two distinct parties — the "men of the city" who 
remained in Athens under the Thirty, and the " men 
of the Peiraeus." The line of demarcation could have 
been drawn so sharply only while the war of parties 
was quite recent ; not two or three years later, when 
exiles and oligarchs had long been fused once more 
into one civic body. It was, no doubt, remembered 
for years who had been on one side and who on the 
other. But in a speech made (say) in 400 B.C., we 
should not find the " men of the city " and the " men 

1 The view that Lysias accused On the other hand, it can hardly he 

Eratosthenes at Ids eudduat is taken doubtful that a resident-alien would, 

by Blass (Att. Ber. p. 540) and by as Blass thinks, have been allowed 

Grote (vol. viii. p. 402). I have to prefer an accusation at the 

purposely abstained from bringing euthunae of any official whose acts 

into the question the fact that Lysias had touched him: it certainly is 

was only an isoteles. On the one not doubtful that such a man as 

hand, as Rauchenstein says, a resi- Lysias would have been allowed, 

dent-alien was probably allowed to under the democracy which he had 

prosecute personally, instead of being just helped to restore, to impeach 

represented by his TrpoaT&rrjs, when one of the Thirty Tyrants, 

the duty of avenging blood came - Xen. Ilcllcn. 11. iv. 43. 
upon him as the nearest relative. 


of Peiraeus" addressed separately as if they still 
formed two distinct camps. 

The speech falls into two divisions. The first 
and shorter (§§ 1-36) deals with the special charge 
against Eratosthenes ; the second, with his political 
character and with the crimes of the Tyrants generally. 

I. §§ 1-36 

Analysis. The difficulty here is not how to begin, but where to 

stop. Ordinarily the accuser is expected to show that he 
has some motive for hostility to the accused. Here it 
would be more natural to ask the accused what motive he 
and his fellows have had for their hostility to Athens 


Lysias then enters on his narrative of the facts. His 
father had been invited by Pericles to settle at Athens as a 
resident-alien, and had lived there peaceably for thirty years. 
His family had never been involved in any troubles until the 
time of the Thirty Tyrants. Theognis and Peison, members 
of that body, suggested the policy of plundering the resident- 
aliens. These two men first paid a visit to the shield-manu- 
factory of Lysias and his brother, and took an inventory of 
the slaves. They next came to the dwelling-house of Lysias, 
and got all his ready money, about three talents. He managed 
to slip away from them, and took refuge with a friend in the 
Peiraeus ; then, hearing that his brother Polemarchus had 
been met in the street by Eratosthenes and taken to prison, 
he escaped by night to Megara. Polemarchus received the 
usual mandate of the Thirty — to drink the hemlock ; and 
had a beggar's burial. Though he and Lysias had yielded 
such rich plunder, the very earrings were taken from the ears 
of his wife (§ 19). Now the murderer of Polemarchus was 
Eratosthenes (§§ 4-23). Here he is briefly cross-examined : — 
" Did you arrest Polemarchus or not ? " " Terrified by 

L YSIA S — WORKS 26 1 

the orders of the authorities, I proceeded to do so." " And 
were you in the council chamber when we were being talked 
about ? " "I was." " Did you support, or oppose, those 
who advised our execution ? " " Opposed them." " Opposed 
our being put to death ? " " Yes." " Considering such 
treatment of us to be unjust — or just ? " " Unjust." 

Lysias comments indignantly on these answers. If 
Eratosthenes had really protested against the sentence, he 
would not have been selected to make the arrest. He was 
one of the Thirty themselves and had nothing to fear. All 
the circumstances disprove his pretence of good-will: 
instead of contenting himself with a visit to the house of 
Polemarchus, he seized him in the street ; he gave him no 
friendly hint beforehand. If it is true that he opposed the 
sentence, he must at least prove that he did not make the 
arrest, or did not make it in a harsh manner. The judges 
are then reminded of the importance which their decision 
will have as an example for both citizens and foreigners. 
The fate of the generals who conquered at Arginusae is con- 
trasted with the deserts of those who profited by the defeat 
at Aegospotami. If those suffered death, what is due to 
these? (§§ 24-36). 

II. SS 37-100 

To say more is superfluous : the guilt of Eratosthenes has 
already been shown to be capital. But lest he should 
appeal to his past life, this must be exposed. In the first 
oligarchy [411 B.C.] he had to fly from the Hellespont after 
an unsuccessful attempt to corrupt the democratic crews of 
Athenian vessels there. After the defeat of Athens [405 
B.C.] he and Critias were first among the Five Ephori and 
afterwards among the Thirty Tyrants. Perhaps he will say 
that he obeyed the Thirty through fear. No ; in the cause 
of Theramenes he dared to oppose them. But this 
opposition was not patriotic; all the quarrels among the 


Thirty were selfish. The so-called moderate party to which 
Theramenes belonged was represented by the later Board of 
Ten. And the Ten, instead of promoting peace, waged war 
with the exiles more bitterly than the Thirty (§§ 37-61). 

Theramenes is the man whom Eratosthenes takes credit 
for having defended. It can be fancied how 7 eagerly he 
would have claimed friendship with Themistocles, who built 
the walls of Athens, if he is proud of friendship with Thera- 
menes — who pulled them down. Theramenes, when a 
member of the first oligarchy, betrayed his own closest friends, 
Antiphon and Archeptolemus ; after Aegospotami, he under- 
took to make peace without loss of honour, and yet it was 
he who proposed at Sparta that Athens should lose her wails 
and her fleet; it was he who advocated the proposal of 
Dracontides for the establishment of the Thirty ; and it is 
this man — twice the enslaver of Athens — whom Eratosthenes 
glories in having defended ! (§§ 62-78). 

This is no season for mercy. The man who condemned, 
untried, the fathers, sons, brothers of those who now judge 
him, does not deserve even a trial. His advocates can urge 
no merits either of his or of their own. His witnesses are 
mistaken if they think that they can shield from peril of 
death the men who made it dangerous to attend a burial. 
They will say that Eratosthenes was the least criminal of 
the Thirty. Is he to escape because there are twenty-nine 
greater villains in Greece? (§§ 79—91). 

Lysias now addresses himself, first, to those who 
remained in Athens during the Anarchy, then to the exiles 
who returned from the Peiraeus — speaking as if he had 
before him two definite bodies of men. He reminds each 
party of their peculiar reasons for hating the Thirty. The 
" men of the city " should hate that despotism ; for it shared 
with them nothing but its shame, and forced upon them an 
unholy strife. The " men of Peiraeus " should hate it : it 
proscribed them, persecuted them, severed them from country 


and kinsfolk. Had it triumphed, no sanctuary would have 
protected them, nothing could have saved their children 
from outrage at home or slavery abroad. But it is needless 
to speak of what might have been : what has been is too 
great for words. It can only be felt — felt, with boundless 
resentment for the shrines which these men desecrated, for 
the city which they humbled, — for the dead, who are 
listening now to mark if the judges will avenge them. 

" I will cease to accuse. You have heard, seen, suffered : 
— you have them: — judge" (§§ 92-100). 

The result is unknown. But as the accused had Result of 

., . the Trial. 

evidently strong support, and as Lysias complains 
of the difficulty which he had experienced in finding 
witnesses to some of the principal facts, it is probable 
that the penalty of death, at least, was not inflicted. 1 

The Speech Against Eratosthenes must take the character 
first place among the extant orations of Lysias. In speech. 
the two parts into which it naturally falls the speech 
presents, in perhaps unique combination, two distinct 
styles of eloquence, — first, the plain earnestness of a 
private demand for redress — then the lofty vehemence 
of a political impeachment. The compass of the 
power shown may best be measured by the two 
passages which mark its limits — on the one hand, the 
account of the arrest of Polemarchus, which has 
almost the flow of Heroclotean narrative ; — on the 
other hand, the passionate appeal to the two classes 
of men who had suffered from the Thirty — worked up 
with all the resources of a finished rhetoric. As 

1 Grote, vol. vni. p. 402 : Rauch- the difficulty about witnesses, §§ 46, 

enstein, Introd. p. 16 : Blass, Att. 47. See Or. x. (Against Theo- 

Ber. p. 542. As to the number of nmestus) §31, and the remarks on 

men who supported Eratosthenes, it below, 
see §§ 51, 56, 65, 87, 88, 91. As to 


regards the first, what may be called the private, 
division of the speech, it is very noticeable how little 
attempt Lysias makes to excite compassion ; he con- 
tents himself with a bare recital of facts. He relies 
less on the atrocity of the wrong itself than on its 
significance as part of that system of organised crime 
which he sees personified in Eratosthenes. He there- 
fore throws his whole weight upon the second, the 
public, division of his subject; and here he gives us. 
first, two political biographies, the lives of Erato- 
sthenes and Theramenes — then, a retrospect of the 
government to which they belonged. In one sense 
this speech of Lysias may be compared with that of 
Demosthenes On the Crown. The question at issue 
involves a whole chapter of Athenian history, in 
which both the parties to the case were actors. But 
there is a difference. Demosthenes, the statesman, 
reviews the train of events with which he deals from 
the level of one who has helped to determine their 
course. Lysias stands on the lower ground of a 
private person ; he sees the events of the Anarchy as 
they were seen by the masses who suffered, but were 
powerless to control ; he does not discuss two rival 
lines of policy, but recalls, as a common man, 
experiences familiar to thousands. It is just because 
he speaks from among the crowd that he is so 
successful in denouncing Eratosthenes, and leaves the 
impression that in his attack upon the worst of close 
oligarchies he was the spokesman of an entire people. 1 

1 Perhaps sceptical criticism lias by A. Hecker (progr. Gymn. Leiil. a. 

produced no greater marvel than an 1847-8). After proving to his own 

essay Be oratione in Eratosthenem satisfaction the spuriousness of this 

Trigintavirum Lysiac /also tributa, speech, the anther ends by regretting 


2. Against Agoratus, [Or. xiii.] — Agoratus, son vi. 2. 
of a slave, had gained the Athenian citizenship by Agoratus. 
pretending to have had a hand in the assassination of 
Phrynichus in 411; a merit to which, according to 
his accuser, he had no claim (§ 76). For six years 
afterwards he had lived at Athens, exercising the 
trade of informer, and laying " all conceivable indict- 
ments 57 (ra$ eg av0poo7ro)p ypacf)d^ § 73) before the law- 
courts. He is now charged with having slandered 
away the lives of several distinguished citizens just 
before the establishment of the Thirty. 

It was in the spring of 404 that Theramenes came 
back from Sparta with the hard conditions of peace. 
Athens had been suffering for months the extreme of 
famine and misery ; the mass of citizens were thank- 
ful for relief on any terms. But there were still a 
few men, influential by their position and service, 
who stood out against the bargain which the olirar- 
chical party were about to strike with Sparta. The 
oligarchs, impatient to get rid of their opponents, had 
recourse to the aid of Agoratus. It was arranged 
that he should himself be charged with plotting to 
defeat the peace, and should then denounce a certain 
number of other persons as his accomplices. One 
Theocritus accused him before the Senate. A party 
of senators went to the Peiraeus to arrest him. Ago- 
ratus, feigning alarm, took sanctuary at the altar in 
the temple of Artemis at Munychia. Certain citizens 

that lie lias spent some time in et omnes par iter Andoeideae orationcs 

emending the speech Against Ago- spuriae sunt. Quae brevi singula 

ratus ; "quam suppositam esse a persecuturus sum." Literature has 

Graeculo ludimagistro idoneis argu- lost a curiosity by the non-fulfilment 

mentis evincam. Antiphonteae omnes of this promise. 



who suspected him to be the victim, or the agent, of 
a plot, gave bail for him, and offered to take him out 
of Attica to await quieter times. He declined this 
proposal, and appeared before the Senate to give 
information. He denounced, first, the men who had 
bailed him ; then several of the Generals and taxi- 
archs (§ 13), among whom were the General Strombi- 
chides, Dionysiodorus (kinsman of the accuser in this 
case), and probably Eucrates x the brother of Nicias ; 
also a number of other citizens. These, with Ago- 
ratus himself, were imprisoned ; and it was decreed 
that they should be tried both by the Senate and by 
a special court of Two Thousand. Immediately after- 
wards the peace with Sparta was ratified. 2 

1 Eucrates is not named in this 
speech ; but see § 5 of Or. xviii., 
which refers to the confiscation of 
his property. 

- That, according to Lysias, the 
informations of Agoratus were made 
before the acceptance of the peace 
and the surrender of the city, appears 
distinctly from § 17, e'(\ovro irplv 
tt]u • e KK\y]aiav ttjv ire pi rrjs 
elpr]V7]s yevicrdcu tovtovs (the 
popular leaders) els 5t.a[3o\as kcll 
favduvovs KaraaTTjaai. It follows also 
from § 16. 

Grote (vin. p. 320) believes that 
Lysias has misdated the informations 
of Agoratus, placing them before the 
surrender, whereas they were, in fact, 
given after it. He remarks : (1) 
That it is difficult to suppose an 
interval sufficient for these accusa- 
tions between the return of Thera- 
menes and the ratification of the 
peace, for which the people were 
most impatient. (2) That the bailers 
of Agoratus could not have proposed 
to convey him away by sea from 
Munychia, when the harbour was 

blocked up. (3) That the expression 
"till quieter times" (ecos Karaaralr} 
ra 7rpayijLaTa, lb.) would have been 
inappropriate at a moment just before 
the surrender. 

Now, (1) all that Lysias relates 
about the informations need not have 
occupied more than one day ; there 
is room for them, then, between the 
return of Theramenes and the ratifica- 
tion of the peace (on the day after 
his return, Xen. Hellcn. n. ii. 22). 
Lysias describes the capitulation and 
entrance of Lysander into Athens as 
following immediately on the act of 
Agoratus, § 34. (2) We do not know 
how strict the blockade established 
in November 405 may have been in 
March 404: the "two boats" may 
have lain ready at some point in 
Munychia outside the harbour. (3) 
The third objection I do not under- 
stand. Surely the time just before 
the surrender — when Athens was full 
of misery and faction — might be 
called a troubled time. 

No doubt Lysias had a motive for 
placing the informations of Agoratus 


The government of the Thirty having been estab- 
lished, the prisoners were tried ; but not by the Two 
Thousand ; only by a new- oligarchical Senate. They 
were all condemned to death, except Agoratus, who 
was banished. In 404 he joined the democratic exiles 
at Phyle, and afterwards returned to Athens with 
them ; but appears to have been ill received (§ 77). 
He is now accused of murder by Dionysius, cousin 
and brother-in-law to Dionysiodorus. 

The procedure was not by an indictment before Mode of 

-,-p^-,,..,, . p procedure. 

the Areiopagus or the Delphmion, but by an informa- 
tion (endeixis) laid before the archon, followed by a 
summary arrest (apagoge) — precisely as in the case 
of the Mitylenean charged with the murder of Hero-, for whom Antiphon wrote a defence ; the case 
was therefore heard by an ordinary court under the 
presidency of the Eleven. There had, however, been 
a slight informality. Strictly speaking, endeixis and 
apagoge were applicable only in cases where the 
accused had been taken in the act ; though, as appears 
from this and from the Herodes case, the limitation 
was not always observed. Here the accuser had left 
out the words eV avrotjxopa) in drawing up the indict- 
ment ; but had been compelled to acid them by the 

before the capitulation, and thus narrative of Lysias to suppose that 

representing him as responsible for it. the peace had been accepted, and that 

On the other hand, it may be ob- the popular leaders, when denounced 

served that the oligarchs would not by Agoratus, were only agitating for a 

have had the same motive for suborn- revision of it. But the words in § 1? 

ing Agoratus when the peace, which bar this view. Renner can get over 

gave them the ascendency, had been them only by supposing them corrupt, 

ratified. He proposes with Frohberg to strike 

An ingenious attempt has been out the words tt)v wept ttjs elp-qv-qs 

made (by Christian Renner, Comment. after iKKXrjcriav. This is to cut the 

Lysiae. ce. duo, Gbttingen 1869) to knot, 
show that it is consistent with the 


Eleven, although in this instance they had no real 
meaning (§§ 84, 86). 
»ate. The trial took place "long after" the events to 

which it referred (§ 83) ; and the condemnation of 
Menestratus, who himself suffered on the same 
account "long after" his offence (§ 56), is mentioned 
as if it was not very recent. At least five or six years, 
then, must have elapsed since 404 B.C. The speech 
cannot be placed earlier than 400 ; probably it may 
be placed as late as 39 8. 1 

Analysis. The speaker begins by explaining that both on private 

and on public grounds he is entitled to be the accuser of 
Agoratus. On private grounds, since Dionysiodorus was his 
cousin and brother-in-law ; on public, because the crime of 
Agoratus affects the whole State (§§ 1-4). 

The narrative of the facts (§§ 5-48) falls into four parts. 
(i) From the defeat at Aegospotami in 405 to the moment 
when Agoratus made his accusations, in the spring of 404 : 
§§ 5-34. (ii) The trial and condemnation of the accused : 
§§ 35-38. (iii) Their last injunctions to their relatives: 
S§ 39-42. (iv) The sequel of their deaths — the reign of 
terror, which they had foreseen and endeavoured to avert : 
1 43-48. 

The pleas which Agoratus may set up in his defence are 
next considered. He may deny the fact of having informed ; 
but the decrees of the Senate and of the ecclesia will con- 
fute him. He may pretend that he informed in the interest 
of the State ; but the events disprove that. He may say that 
lie was forced to inform ; but the circumstances of his arrest 
show that he did so willingly. He may throw the blame on 
Menestratus, who also informed. JS T ay, Menestratus was after- 
wards a victim of Agoratus, whose turn it is now to suffer 

1 Eauchensteiii, Introd. p. 55 : Blass, Att. Bcr. p. 557. 


himself. Compare the conduct of Agoratus with that of 
Aristophanes, who died rather than turn accuser (§§ 49-61). 

The eminent men whom Agoratus destroyed may be con- 
trasted with himself and with his family. His three brothers 
have all suffered death for base crimes ; he himself obtained 
the citizenship by pretending to have assassinated Phry nichus. 
It is a dilemma ; let him suffer for the murder or for the 
fraud (§§ 62-76). 

He will perhaps claim sympathy as having joined the 
exiles at Phyle, and returned with them. The fact was that, 
when he appeared at Phyle, they would have put him to 
death, had not the general Anytus interfered ; and when, at 
the entry into Athens, he presumed to bear arms in the pro- 
cession, Aesimus, its leader, came and snatched away his 
shield (§§ 77-82). 

Or he will raise technical objections. He will say that 
the time which has elapsed ought to exempt him from penal- 
ties ; but there is no statute of limitations (irpoBeafila, §83) 
here. Or he will say that the words eV avrocjxopa) were 
omitted in the indictment ; which is much the same thing as 
arguing that he is guilty, indeed, but was not caught in guilt. 
Or he will plead the Amnesty. This is in itself a confession. 
Moreover, the Amnesty was a covenant between the oligarchs 
in the city (§§ 83—90) and the democrats of the Peiraeus : 
it has no force as between two democrats. 

The judges, the whole people, are bound by the solemn 
injunctions of the dead. To acquit Agoratus would be to 
confirm the sentence by which they perished. A democratic 
court must not be in unison with the courts of the Tyrants. 
By condemning Agoratus, the judges will mark the difference 
between them ; will avenge their friends ; and will have done 
right in the sight of all men (§§ 91-97). 

In historical interest the speech Against Agoratus 
stands next, perhaps, to the speech Against Erato- 


sthenes ; but it is conceived in a totally different 
character spirit. No transition from a private to a public 
Speech as character, like that which is so marked in the other 
with br. case, occurs here. From beginning to end the accuser 
of Agoratus confines himself to his special task, that 
of demanding vengeance for the death of his kinsman. 
Much of the general history of the time is necessarily 
introduced, and the speaker of course avails himself 
of the great advantage which he possesses in being- 
able to represent the slander of Agoratus as treason 
to the State. But there is no such large view of a 
whole period as is given in the speech Against Era- 
tosthenes. The historical references are scattered, 
not concentrated, and, instead of forming pictures, 
are only picturesque ; individual interests are in 
the foreground throughout. Lysias accusing Era- 
tosthenes hardly attempts to excite a personal sym- 
pathy ; he relies rather on the hatefulness of that 
system of crime to which this particular crime be- 
longed ; Dionysius accusing Agoratus describes the 
wives, mothers, sisters of the condemned visiting 
them in prison, and receiving their last messages of 
vengeance— a passage which strikingly resembles in 
conception and tone the prison-scene in the speech of 
Andocides On the Mysteries. The arrangement of 
the topics here, as usually with Lysias when he takes 
pains, is clear and good ; though perhaps the speaker 
tries to make too many distinct points towards the 
end, and thereby rather impairs the breadth and 
strength of his argument. This is particularly the 
case in §§ 70-90 ; where the sophism about the 
Amnesty — that it w T as not meant to hold good be- 


tween two men of the same party — is a curious 
exception to the usual tact of Lysias in argument. 

3. On the Death of Eratosthenes. [Or. 1.]— vi. 3. on 

J " the Death 

Euphiletus, an Athenian citizen of the humbler sort, of Erato- 

t^ - / » sthenes. 

had slain one Eratosthenes of Oea (OcyOev, § 16), whom 
he had taken in adultery with his wife. He is now 
prosecuted for murder by the relatives of Eratosthenes ; 
and pleads in his defence the law which allowed the 
husband, in such cases, to kill the adulterer 1 (§§ 30, 31). 
As the law was clearly against them, the accusers 
were driven to allege that Euphiletus had himself 
decoyed Eratosthenes into his house (§ 30) ; and that 
the real motive of the homicide was fear, enmity, or 
cupidity. This line of argument may have had some 
plausibility if Athenian husbands were in the habit 
of compromising such cases. 2 But the assertion of 
the accusers would be hard to prove ; and Euphiletus 
speaks throughout like a man confident of a verdict. 

The cause would be tried, probably by heliastic 
judges, 3 at the Delphinion, the court for cases in 
which an admitted homicide was defended as justi- 
fiable. There is nothing to indicate the date. 

The accused asks the judges to imagine themselves in Analysis. 
his place : all Greece, he says, would recognise the justice of 

1 Deni. in Aristocr. § 53, £di> ris Ber. p. 577), this ease of Eratosthenes 

diroKTelvr) ev ad\ois €K.oov...r) iirl da- happens to be the only recorded 

/mapTL, k.t.X. ..tovtuv €V€kcl fj.7) <pevyeiv example of that extreme and summary 

Kreivavra. vengeance which the law allowed. 

- In one instance, at all events, 3 After the year of Eucleides, 

we find that the injured husband heliastic judges sat at the Palladion : 

\cliul(3&v€l /jLOLx6v...Kal els (pofiov Kara- see Isocr. adv. Callim. § 54, Dem. in 

arrjcras it parrerai r ptaKovra /mvas Neaer. § 90. Probably at the Del- 

— not an excessive sum : Bern, in phinion also they had taken the 

Neacr. § 65. As Blass notices (Att. place of the Ephetae. 


his act, He had no motive for it but the dishonour done to 
his wife, his children and himself (§§ 1-4). Then comes 
the narrative (§§ 5-28), followed by the citation of witnesses 
and laws (§§ 29-36). He meets the suggestions of the 
defendants ; as (i) that Eratosthenes was decoyed into the 
house, §§ 37-42 ; (ii) that the homicide was prompted by a 
former enmity, or by cupidity, §§ 43-46. In any of these 
cases, he would not have slain him before witnesses. The 
decision of the judges will have a good effect if it accords 
with the laws ; if it does not, then these laws should be 
annulled, since citizens are only entrapped (iveSpevovrca) by 
them. His life and property are at risk because he trusted 
to the laws of the city (§§ 47-50). 

Social in- The first part of this speech (§§ 5-28) is curious 

tiiTspeech. as a vivid picture — vivid with almost Aristoplianic 
life — of a small Athenian household ; l especially as 
illustrating the position of a married woman of the 
lower class. The husband says that, at first, his wife 
crave him entire satisfaction as a housekeeper : on his 
part, he " watched her as far as possible, and gave all 
reasonable attention to the subject" ; at length, how- 
ever, at her mother's funeral, she for once left the 
house ; and hence the intrigue. Lysias has been clever 
in making the defence homely and at the same time 
dignified ; Euphiletus, the plain citizen, feels strong 
in the law of the city. 
VL 4> . 4. Defence Against Simon. [Or. til] — The 
Aglhlst accused, an elderly Athenian of good family and 
fortune (§§ 4, 47), is accused by one Simon of 
having wounded him in a quarrel about one 
Theodotus, a young Plataean. The indictment 

1 The passage §§ 6-18 may be noted as a locus classicus on the 
architecture of Athenian houses. 



was for " Wounding with Intent " (rpav/jbaro^ ix 
Trpovolas), a charge which, in this case, seems to 
have been made merely in the sense of "wounding 
deliberately." l But, as the accused justly says, 
the " intent " to which the law referred was not 
merely intent to wound, but intent to kill (§§ 40- 
43). It was for this reason that the Areiopagus 
had jurisdiction in such cases, as well as in those of 
actual murder. 2 The present trial took place before 
that court (§§ 1, 3); the penalty was banishment 
(§ 47), and further (as appears from Or. iv. § 18) 
confiscation of property. The battles of Corinth and Date. 
of Coroneia had already been fought (§ 45) ; the 
speech is therefore later than 394 B.C. 

After observing that Simon ought to be defendant Anaiysi 
rather than prosecutor, and requesting the indulgence of 
the court for the weakness which had involved him in so 
unpleasant a dispute (§§ 1-4), the accused gives his own 
account of the (juarrel between himself and the prosecutor 
(§§ 5—20). He then refutes the account given by Simon 
(§§ 21—39). The formula, "wounding with intent," does 
not, he says, apply to this case (§§ 41-43). He wishes 

1 The Tpavfiaros ypacpf) seems to voias ypacpas ypacpouevos (in Ctes. 

have been notorious as an instrument § 212). Compare Lucian Timon% 46 

of false accusation. Cf. Dem. adv. rXAOOXIAHS. ri rovro ; iraieis, u> 

Boeot. II. § 32, €TriT€/jL<hv tt]v K€(pa\7]v TifxojV ixapTvpo[iaL. co 'Hpd/cXets, lov 

avrou Tpau/JLaros els "Apetov irayov fie lov. 7rpocrKa\ov/ ere rpavjxaros is 

irpoaeKaXecraro, cbs (pvyadedaoju e/c rr)s 'Apetov Trayov. 

TroXeojs. Aeschines cliarges Demos- 2 For the law see Dem. in Aris- 

thenes with having brought a false tocr. § 22. In [Lys.] in Andoc. § 15 

ypacprj of the same kind against one it is loosely said that ' ' according to 

Demomeles (Be F. L. § 93, in Ctes. § the laws of the Areiopagus" the 

51) ; indeed, he says, this was one of penalty was banishment av...ns 

his habitual villainies — rr\v paapav avSpos <rw/j.a rpdoay KecpaXrjv r) irpbcr- 

ravrrju Kecpa\r)v koX virevdvvov ... ujttov r) %etpas r) irbbas — the mention 

pLvpi&Kis narare T/uL7]Ke /cat rovrwv of the irpbvoia being omitted. 
fiiadovs el\r)<pe r pavfiaros €K irpo- 



vi. 5. On 
Won n ding 
with In- 


that he was at liberty to give illustrations of Simon's, 
character [the Areiopagns not allowing the introduction of 
irrelevant matter]. As it is, he will mention only one fact 
— that Simon was dismissed from the Athenian army at 
Corinth (§§ 44, 45). Simon, he concludes, is one of those 
informers u who force their way into our houses, who 
persecute us, who snatch us by force out of the street," 
He appeals to the services of his ancestors, and to his own: 
and says that compassion is due to him, not only in the 
event of being condemned, but for the very fact of having 
been brought to trial (>§ 46-48). 

5. On Wo-undmy witlt Intent. [Or. i\\] — The 
first part of this speech has been lost, 1 and with it 
the original title. It is a defence before the Areio 
pagus on a charge of wounding with murderous 
intent in a quarrel for the possession of a slave girl. 
The defendant asserted that the slave was the joint 
property of himself and the accuser ; the latter 
claimed sole ownership (§10). The penalty threaten- 
ing the accused was banishment and confiscation of 
property (§ 18). 

The speech, as now extant, begins at the point where 
the defendant is answering the assertion that a persona! 
enmity of long standing accounts for the murderous 
character of the assault. It is not true, the defendant says, 
that they were at this time enemies ; they had been recon- 
ciled. He had been called upon to perform a costly 

1 The loss must have taken place p. 590), the preceding speech or 

before the Palatine MS. was written. speeches can have contained little 

Sauppe (0. A. p. 73), regarding the more than the narrative ; since our 

speech as complete in its present speech deals with the proof. Francken 

shape, thinks that it was the last or {Comment. Lys. p. 37) and Scheibe 

at least the second ("epilogus vel (Blass I.e.) agree in thinking the 

deuterologia") made for the defence. speech imperfect, 
In that case, as Blass says (Alt. Ber. 

L YSIA S— WORKS 2 7 5 

leiturgia, and had challenged his present accuser either to 
undertake it himself or to exchange properties (avrihoa-is) ; 
and this had been cited by the accuser in proof of the 
alleged hostility. But it has been shown that this 
exchange was never actually made ; friends mediated, and 
the defendant took the leiturgia. The accuser had, indeed, 
already received some property of his, with a view to the 
exchange ; but had returned it when the reconciliation 
took place. Another proof is given that they were on good 
terms. The accuser had been nominated by the defendant 
as judge of the prizes at the Dionysia. Unfortunately,, 
when lots were drawn, he was not among the judges 
elected. If he had been, his goodwill to the defendant 
would have been publicly shown ; for he was prepared to 
give the prize to the defendant's tribe, and left a written 
memorandum of that resolve x (§§ 1—4). 

Assuming, however, that this personal enmity did exist, 
yet the very circumstances of the assault exclude the idea 
of premeditation. The accuser had made the utmost of a 
black eye {vTrconria § 9), and had pretended illness. At 
the same time he has refused to allow the slave, who was 
the cause and the eyewitness of the quarrel, to be put to 
the question (§§ 5-11). After dwelling further on the 

1 § 3 e^ovkoji-qv 5' hv /X77 airo\axew nominated by the Senate ; tlie names 

avrbv KpiT7]v AiovvcrioLs, tv vjuv (pavepbs of all the nominees were put into an 

eyevero e/mol diTiWayfievos, Kpivas tt)v urn, and lots were then drawn (Isocr. 

ifirjv (pvXrjv vlkolv' vvv he eypa-J/e [iev Trapez. § 33). The defendant— being 

TavTa€isTbypa/uL/JLaT€'coi',&Tre\axede: — at the time a senator — had so 

' ' I could have wished that he had nominated the accuser, under a com- 

not missed the lot to be judge at the pact that he should award the prize 

Dionysia, as then he would have to the chorus furnished by the 

proved to you that he was reconciled defendant's tribe. The accuser had 

to me, by adjudging the victory to registered this compact ; but, in the 

my tribe. As it was, he made a note end, his name was not drawn. This 

of it in his tablets, but failed to draw is Francken's explanation {Comment. 

the lot." Lys. p. 38) ; and no better has been 

The reference is apparently to a offered. The shock which the can- 
private compact between the defend- ' dour of the defendant must have 

ant and the accuser. The judges of given to the Areiopagus is perhaps 

the prizes at the Dionysia were not a decisive objection. 



refusal of this challenge (irpoicXricris) as presumptive 
evidence in his own favour (§§ 12—17), the defendant ends 
by contrasting the gravity of his danger with the worth- 
lessness of its cause, and begs the court not to award so 
disproportionate a penalty to him, and so excessive a, 
triumph to his unjust accuser (§§ 18-20). 

by the 

doubt of 
its genuine- 

This fragment has at least some antiquarian 
interest. It is curious to find from § 2 that the fact 
of having offered a man the anticlosis could be quoted 
in court as presumptive evidence of ill-will towards 
him. The difficult passage in § 3 regarding the 
appointment of judges at the Dionysia has already 
been noticed. Section 4 illustrates a point in the 
peculiar procedure of the Areiopagus — that no 
witness could be examined who did not swear either 
to or against the guilt of the accused in regard to 
the particular facts before the court. 

Taylor's suspicion that in this piece a sophistic 
writer has imitated the Defence against Simon 
seems gratuitous. 1 If the fragment which has been 
preserved is neither clear in arrangement nor strong 
in argument, it has at least the vigorous simplicity 
by which Lysias knew how to make the appeal of 
a commonplace man effective without making it 

1 ' ' Multis modis mihi videtur haec 
declamatiuncula in umbra Scholae 
{leXeraadai, ad imaginem superioris 
orationis elaborata, cui deinde ob 
argumenti affinitatem in scriptis 
eodd., ut fieri solet, perpetuo ad- 
haesit." Taylor ap. Reiske Or. Att. 

v. p. 164. Blass (p. 594) answers 
some objections raised by Falk to the 
arrangement of the speech; by 
Scheibe, to the weakness of the 
TTLUT6LS and to some points of ex- 


VII. Causes relating to Impiety (ypacpal 

ace/3e/a9, lepoavklas k.t.X.) 

1. Against Andocides. [Or. vi.] — This is cer- vn. 1. 

• t T -1 Against 

tamly not the work 01 Lysias ; but 111 any survey Andocides 
of his works its claim to be ranked with them must 
at least be examined. It is probable that it was 
really spoken against Andocides at his trial in 399 
B.C. The occasion and the circumstances of that 
trial have already been discussed. 1 Of his three 
accusers — Cephisius, Epichares and Meletus — one, 
Cephisius, is mentioned by the speaker (§ 42) : it is 
possible that the speaker himself may have been one 
of the other two. 2 Two lost pages of the Palatine 
MS. contained probably the latter part of the speech 
Against Callias, and the first part of this speech 
Against Andocides. But it is not likely that the 
part thus lost was so large as to include, besides the 
proem, a connected statement of the whole case. It 
remains to suppose that such a statement had been 
made by a previous speaker and is only supple- 
mented here. This is what might have been ex- 
pected ; Cephisius, the chief accuser, would properly 
have made the leading speech. 

The fragment begins in the middle of a story told to Analysis. 
show how surely the goddesses of Eleusis resent an insult. 
A certain man cheated them of an offering ; and there came 
upon him this doom, that he starved amid plenty ; for 
though good food was set before him, the goddesses made it 

1 pp. 112 ff. whose father Zacorus had held the 

2 All that can be gathered from office of iepo<pavT7)s, or initiating 
the speech about the speaker is that priest at Eleusis : § 54. 

he was the grandson of one Diocles, 


seem loathsome to him. Let the judges beware, then, of 
showing mercy to Andocides, whose punishment is claimed 
by these same deities (§§ 1-3). If he should be acquitted, 
and, as Archon Basileus, should some day conduct the 
festival of the Mysteries, what a scandal for comers from 
all parts of Greece ! For he is known to them, not only 
by his deeds at Athens, but by his conduct during his exile 
in Sicily, in Italy, in the Peloponnesus, at the Hellespont, 
in Ionia, at Cyprus (§§ 4—8). 

He will say that the decree banishing him from the 
agora and the temples has been cancelled. Let the advice 
of Pericles be remembered, that impious men should be 
liable not only to written laws, but to the unwritten laws 
of the Eumolpidae. Andocides has aggravated his offence 
against the gods by presuming to make himself their 
champion. Before he had been ten days at Athens, he 
accused Archippus of having defaced a Hermes, and with- 
drew the charge only on receiving money (§§ 9—12). He 
will say that it is hard if the informer is to suffer when the 
denounced have been pardoned. The court is not respon- 
sible for that pardon ; besides, these men denied their guilt ; 
he confesses it. A man is banished for injuring his fellow ; 
shall he not be banished for injuring the gods ? Diagoras 
of Melos mocked the religion of a strange land ; Andocides 
outraged the religion of his own. It is a further proof of 
atheism that, not dreading his own crimes, he committed 
himself to the dangers of the sea. [A notable petitio 
principii.] But the gods were reserving him for a late 
reckoning. Let the judges consider what his life has been 
since his first great crime. Imprisoned, and escaping only 
by betraying kinsmen and friends ; disfranchised and 
banished ; rejected by oligarchy and by democracy at home, 
ill-treated by tyrants abroad ; and now, in this same year, 
twice brought to trial ! Men ought not to lose faith in 
the gods because they see Andocides surmount so many 

L YS1A S — WORKS 279 

dangers : the life of pain thus spared to him is no life 
(i 13-82). 

But he is not content to have escaped punishment ; lie 
dares to meddle in public affairs, even in the concerns of 
religion (§§ 33, 34). And now he will be ready with various 
pleas. That his informations relieved Athens from distress : 
— but who had first caused it ? That the Amnesty shields 
him : but it was only political. That Cephisius is as bad as 
he is : perhaps so, but that is irrelevant. That no one will 
inform in. future, if he suffers : nay, he has had his reward- — 
he saved his life. He is now in danger because he has forced 
himself upon Athens — more shameless than Batrachus, the 
informer of the Thirty, who at least hid his infamy abroad 
(§§ 35-45). 

Why should Andocides be acquitted ? Not for his ser- 
vices in war, for he has never made a campaign. Not for 
services rendered by his boasted wealth ; for at the citizens' 
sorest need he did not so much as buy them corn (§§ 46-49). 
[Here, after the dvra7roSov^, follows a lacuna : see above, 
p. 196.] 

The profanation of the Mysteries is an old story now, and 
men's horror of it is faded : but let them for a moment 
imagine Andocides mocking the awful rites of the Initiated, 
and then remember the priests standing with their faces to 
the west, and waving the crimson banners as they cursed 
him ! The city must be purged and the gods appeased by 
his expulsion. Once, when it was proposed that a Megarian 
guilty of impiety should be put to death without trial, 
Diodes said that he ought to be tried indeed, but that every 
judge must come into court resolved to condemn. And now, 
let not the judges be moved by entreaty. Compassion is 
not for murderers but for their victims (£§ 50-55). 

The doubt with which Harpocration twice * names 

1 s. vv. KarairXr)^ (pap/xaKos. It citation, s.v. powrpov, the words el 
may be an accident that in a third yvr)<nos are not added. 


this speech is the only clue to the opinion of the 
ancients. Modern critics are all but unanimous in 
rejecting it. 
The speech The diction shows many words and phrases which 
Lysias. Lysias could hardly have used ; 1 but it is not by the 
diction nor by the composition 2 that his authorship 
is disproved. The question is decided by broader 
characteristics. In arrangement Lysias was not fault- 
less ; but he would not have tolerated the chaotic 
disorder which is found here. Again, in several of 
those passages which dwell on the crimes of Ando- 
cides and on the vengeance of the gods there is a 
certain hollow pathos, a certain falseness and affected 
elevation, which are utterly remote from the style 
of Lysias. Further, the whole speech has what 
may be called (in the Greek sense) a sycophantic 
tone ; it is rancorous, palpably unfair and prodigal 
of unproved assertion. Lastly, it is singularly de- 
ficient in the foremost general quality of Lysias — in 
tact ; it is pre-eminently a blundering speech. The 
accuser makes at least four mistakes. First, he 
recites at length the sufferings which Andocides has 
been enduring without respite for the last sixteen 
years ; intending thereby to prove the displeasure of 
the gods, but forgetting that he was more likely 
to move the compassion of men. Secondly, he 

J e.g. §§ 4, 44 ddifos : §§ 18, 48 <rdai, etc. {Att. Bcr. p. 574). 
KOfxTrafav : § 30 dXib/mevos : §50/cara- 2 The compositio)/, indeed, is not 

-rrXyyes : § 49 itoia d/napTr/juaTa dvctKaX- very different from that of Lysias. 

e<jd[xevos,iroiarpo(f)€LadTro^Lbovs. Blass It is free from the diffuse periods of 

further notes as non-Lysian such re- the later rhetoric — such as those, for 

dundancies as § 53 ttjv iroXiv Kadaipeiv instance, of the sjteech Against Alci- 

Kal aTodioirofJLireicrOaL kol cpapfiaKov biades attributed to Andocides — 

airoTrepLTreLv /cat aKiTrjplov aVaAAdrre- undoubtedly a late sophistic work. 


observes that, strange to say, Andocides has always 
come safely through his perils ; but that it would 
be wrong to suppose the gods capable of protecting 
him; — an awkward allusion to the natural inference, 
and almost a prophecy of acquittal. Thirdly, in 
noticing the charges brought by Andocides against 
Cephisius, he allows that there is something in them, 
and objects to them only as irrelevant ; thus needlessly 
throwing over his own colleague, the leader of the 
prosecution. Fourthly, he ends by begging the court 
to remember a saying of his own grandfather — that, 
in certain cases, it was the duty of the judges to 
be prejudiced against the accused. Any one of these 
faults would have been striking : taken together, they 
make the authorship of Lysias inconceivable. 

It is a further question whether this Accusation Was the 

. author a 

was written by a contemporary of Lysias, and was contem- 
actually delivered in the Mysteries-trial, or is merely Lysias or 

a later 

a rhetorical exercise of later date. Those who take sophist? 
the latter view lay stress upon the discrepancies 
between this speech and the speech of Andocides 
On the Mysteries. Two of these discrepancies are 
important, (l) Andocides complains of having been 
specially charged with denouncing his own father 
(De My st. § 19) : here, he is only accused generally 
of denouncing his kinsfolk (§ 23). Again (2) he 
speaks of having been charged with placing a sup- 
pliant's bough in the temple at Eieusis (De Myst. 
§ 110) ; here nothing of the kind is mentioned. But 
in regard to such differences, it should be remem- 
bered that this speech, itself mutilated, was not the 
only one for the prosecution ; and that, where the 


subjects of accusation were so large and covered so 
many years, it would have been strange if every 
point had been touched by every accuser. On the 
other hand, a rhetorician who had prepared himself 
by studying the Speech On the Mysteries would 
have aimed at a more exact correspondence with it. 
He would probably have taken the charges against 
Andocides in the order set by his model, and have 
given paragraph for paragraph, or at least topic for 
topic. He must have been a subtle artist indeed, 
if with a general agreement he combined so many 
intentional differences of detail. It may be noticed 
that in § 46 Andocides is said to be "upwards of 
forty years old." This statement has been used as 
an argument for the late origin of the speech by 
those who identify the orator Andocides with the 
general named by Thucydides (i. 51) as holding 
a command in 435 B.C. But if, as is most prob- 
able, the general was the grandfather of the orator, 
and the age of the latter in 399 B.C. was really 
about forty, then the statement in § 46 is one 
reason the more for ascribing the speech to a con- 
temporary of Andocides. 1 As regards the faults 
of expression, of method or of general tone, these 
help to disprove the authorship of Lysias ; but they 
are not of a kind which help to prove that the 
author was a late sophist. Bad taste is of no age : 
and the fact of being contemporary with Lysias need 
not have given a good style to Epichares or Meletus. 

1 See above, p. 70. The inference mistake in later times. The author 

is strengthened by the fact that the of the Plutarchic Life of Andocides, 

mistake which is not made ,hy this for instance, puts his birth in 

speaker seems to have been a common 463 b.<\ 


2. For Callias. [Dr. v.l — The shortness of vn. 2. For 

., .-, Callias. 

this speech does not necessarily prove it to be a 
fragment. It opens with an express statement that 
the case for the defence had already been fully 
argued by others ; and it ends with a completed idea. 
Since, however, two pages of the Palatine MS. have 
been lost just at this place, comprising the first part 
of the speech Against Andocides, that For Callias 
has probably suffered also. ] As it now stands, it 
gives no direct clue to the special nature of the 
case. The traditional title, " Defence on a Charge of 
Sacrilege," must therefore have been taken from the 
part now lost. The accused is a resident-alien (§ 2), 
an elderly man (§ 3), against whom his own slaves, 
in hope of being rewarded w 7 ith liberty, have 

In the view of sacrilege taken by Attic law, its sacrilege 
aspect as a robbery seems to have been more pro- viewed 

minent than its aspect as an impiety. Thus it is 
mentioned in the same category with ordinary theft, 
housebreaking, kidnapping and like offences. 2 In 
this instance it appears from the address, av$pe$ 
Si/cao-ral (§ l), that the trial was not before the 
Areiopagus. The cause must have been heard by 

1 Harpocration s.v. rl/x-qfia has: — to rent some sacred land ("fundum 

Tifiyfia dvrl tov ev€x v P 0V Kat °^ ov sacrum") at a higher rate than he 

dTroTL/iyjfjia (i.e. " instead of security" himself admitted (0. A. u. p. 192). 
or almost in the sense of "mortgage''), ' 2 Xen. Mem. r. ii. 62 edv tis 0a- 

Avaias ev tu inrep KaWiov' ovtol 5e vepbs yevrjTai kX^tttojp t) \cotto8vtQu rj 

(pdaKovres TrXeiovos (juaddbaaa- (3a\ai/TioTO/jL&v fj Toixupvx&v tj dvdpa- 

8oll teal TLfirjfia k ar a <jt rj (T a a d a i. tto8l£6/jl€i>os tj lepocrvX&v, tovtols 

Sauppe thinks that these words are ddvaros kanv i] fyfua. Id. Apol. 

a fragment from our speech ; ovtol Soar. § 25 i(p' ols ye \xr\v epyois /cetrat 

being the slaves of Callias, who ddvaros rj frpila, iepoavXla, roLX^pvx^-, 

accused their master of having agreed dvdparrodicreL, iroXecos Trpodoaia. 

by Attic 

by § 4, 


an ordinary heliastic court, under the presidency 
either of the Thesmothetae or of the Eleven. 1 

Analysis. The speaker says that, were it not a case of life or death, 

he would have forborne to come forward, considering the 
defence to be already complete ; as it is, he desires to give 
a public proof of friendship for Callias (§§ 1,2). He then 
refers very briefly, first, to the high character of the accused ; 
secondly, to the worthless nature of the informations. It 
is the hope of winning freedom which has prompted the 
calumny of the slaves. If they are believed, servants who 
desire liberty will henceforth think, not how they are to 
oblige their masters, but what lie they can tell against them 
(§§ 3-5). 

Conjecture The phrase used by the speaker in reference to 
Callias — " those who bring themselves into clanger 
by lending their services to the Treasury" (to3 Stj/jloo-iw 
/3o7]0ovpt€s § 4) — is noticeable. It suggests that the 
" sacrilege " of which the title speaks may have been 
connected with the sacred treasury on the Acropolis. 
Callias may have had some employment under the 
Stewards of the sacred fund (rafiiai rrjs Oeov, t&v 
iepwv ^p7)jjidT(Dv) which gave him access to the inner 
chamber (dirto-doSo/ios) of the Parthenon ; and may 
have been accused of profiting by that opportunity 
to commit a theft. 

vii. 3. On 3. On the Sacred Olive. [Or. vn.] — The man 

(vn. 2) for wdiom this defence was written — a rich 
Athenian citizen (§§ 21, 31) — had originally been 

1 Meier and Schumann suggest Thesmothetae for presidents, when 

that lepoffvXias ypacpal may have been the question was of the fact only, 

tried (1) by the Areiopagus, when, the alleged act being clearly sacrilegi- 

besides the question of fact, there ous : (3) by heliasts with the Eleven 

was a further question as to whether for presidents, when the committer 

the fact, if established, would amount of sacrilege had been taken in the 

to sacrilege : (2) by heliasts with the act {Ait. Proc. pp. 306 ff.). 

the Sacred 


charged with destroying a moria, or sacred olive, on 
a farm which belonged to him. As to do this was a 
fraud upon the public Treasury, the form of the original 
accusation had been an apographe (aireypd^v, § 2). 
But the charge was not supported by the persons 
who had rented from the State the produce of the 
moriae on this farm (ol iwvrjjjbevoi 7-01)9 Kapirovs t6)v 
fjioptwv, § 2). The accusers had therefore changed 
their ground. They now charge the defendant merely 
with uprooting the fenced-in stump (0-77^09) of a moria ; 
and they lay against him an indictment for impiety. 
The chief accuser is one Nicomachus. 1 

Throughout Attica, besides the olives which were 
private property (JBiai ekalcu, § 10), there were others 
which, whether growing on public or on private lands, 
were considered as the property of the State. These 
were called moriae (fioplat) — the legend being that 
they had been propagated (fiejaopTj/xevac) from the 
original olive which Athena herself had caused to 
spring up on the Acropolis. 2 This theory was con- 
venient for their conservation as State property ; since, 
by giving them a sacred character, it placed them 
directly under the care of the Areiopagus, which 
caused them to be visited once a month by Inspectors 
(eiriixeX^ral, § 29) and once a year by special Com- 
missioners (rypM/Aoves, § 25). To uproot a moria was 
an offence punishable by banishment and confiscation 
of goods (§ 4l). 3 

1 Not the Nicomachus of Or. xxx, 0. C. 705). 

who had held public office in 411 :; In such cases the dy<Jov was 

B.C.; whereas this Nicomachus was a drijji'rjTos, and there was no fixed 

youth in 399 B.C. (§ 29). period (irpodeafiia) after which the 

2 The fiopiat were under the special liability of the offender ceased : Meier 
protection of Zei>s Moptos (Soph. and Schomann. Att. Proc. p. 307. 


Technical The technical terms used in this speech need 


definition : see especially §§ 20, 24. 'Ekala was the 
generic term. Common olive-trees were called, either 
iXalcu simply, or ihtai ekatat ; sacred, either puopiai 
iXalai, or fjuoplai simply. S^ko? properly meant the 
enclosure or fence intended to guard the stump 
(o-TeXexo?) of a moria which had been cut down or 
burnt down (irvpicaua, § 24) — as often happened in 
the raids of the enemy during the Peloponnesian War l 
(§ 6). Then o-t)k6$ came to denote the fence with the 
stump itself ; and this is the sense which it bears in 
this speech: see §11, g^kov i/cfceKocpOat.' 2 In §§ 2, 5 
iXala as opposed to or7]fc6s means a full-grown moria. 

The case is tried by the Areiopagus under the 
presidency of the Archon Basileus. The offence was 
alleged to have been committed in the archonship of 
Date. Suniades (§ 11), 01. 95. 4, 397 B.C. To judge from 

§ 42 (too-ovtg) xpovcp varepov), the trial took place not 
earlier than 395 ; probably later. 

Analysis. A quiet life, the defendant had thought, was its own 

protection ; but he has been taught that hired informers 
have a pow r er which the unborn might dread (§§ 1-3). He 
will have done enough if he can show that there has been 
neither moria nor stump of moria on the farm since it came 
into his possession. This he proves by the evidence of 
tenants who had rented it from him (§§ 4-11). 

After commenting on the unlikelihood of his having 

1 On tlie vitality of the olive, see Athenian could say <jt)kov €kk 6 rrrecv, 
Her. vui. 55, Verg. G. n. 30, 181. thinking rather of the areXexos than 

2 It is true, of course, that as of the fence itself. This is probably 
Rauchenstein says (Introd. to this what Harpocration means when he 
speech, p. 171) arjKos was never a says loosely Gr]Kbv 8e, ws eot/cev, /cat 
mere equivalent for the "stump" juopiav dvon&j; 'overt riqv avrrjv. 

or "stock" ; on the other hand, an 


done a deed which could hardly have escaped detection 
^ 12-18), he observes that the accuser has failed to bring 
any witnesses (§§ 19-23). The defendant has several other 
farms, on which olive-trees abound; but, notwithstanding 
the strict watch kept by the Areiopagus, he has never been 
accused of any such offence as this. And here the risk 
would have been peculiarly great. It is strange if Xico- 
niachus has discovered what escaped the regular Inspectors 
(§§ 24-29). 

He then speaks of his own public services ; of the 
accuser's refusal to give up his slaves for torture, and of the 
absence of witnesses for the prosecution. He describes the 
malice of his enemies who had bribed Nicomaclms to bring 
this charge ; and refers to the cruel sentence which hangs 
over him (§£ 30-41). He then concludes with a short 
review of the whole case. It depends upon an unproved 
assertion, which the accuser has refused to bring to the test 
(§§ 42, 48). 

One attraction, which elsewhere seldom fails Lysias, 
is wanting in this speech : — there is no narrative, for 
there is no story to tell, except the former history of 
the farm. In this, one rather curious point may be 
noticed. The farm had belonged, it seems, to Peis- 
ander ; had been confiscated ; and had then been given 
as a public gift to Apollodorus of Megara. Now 
Apollodorus, as is knowai from the speech Against 
Ao-oratus (§71), was one of the two men who planned 
the assassination of Phrynichus ; and so it appears 
that he had been rewarded for destroying one leader 
of the Four Hundred by receiving the property of 
another. As regards the character of the defendant, fitiiosofthe 
Lysias has described with a few touches the quiet " 
citizen who shrinks from publicity (§ l), but with 


whom, at the same time, it is a point of honour to 
discharge his public duties in the best way (§ 34) ; a 
man who, in Greek phrase, is at once airpd^^wv and 
faXorifios. Photius says that some critics doubted the 
authenticity of this speech : and that the rhetorician 
Paulus of Mysia, in particular, absolutely denied its 
genuineness, for the unconvincing reason that he could 
not understand a word of it. 1 

1 Phot. Cod. 262 dfx(f}LJ3dW€Tat arjKov \6yov, ovdkv r&v elprj jj^evuv 
7ra/3' evlois 6 irepl rod cnjKov \6yos. avvieis, rrjs yvrjcnoTrjTOs t(ov AvaiaKuiv 
llavXos 8e ye 6 £k Mucnas top 7repl tov e/c/3d\Aei \6yccu. 




Forensic Speeches in Private Causes — Miscellaneous 
Writings — Fragments 

Of tlie speeches of Lysias in private causes only four 
are extant ; but each of these four represents a class, 

I. Action for Defamation (Slktj KaK^oplas) 

Against Theomnestus. [Or. x.] — The occasion of 
this action was as follows. (1) Theomnestus, a young 
Athenian, had been indicted by one Lysitheus for 
throwing away his shield in battle, but had been 
acquitted. The present speaker had been among the 
witnesses of Lysitheus ; and in the course of the trial 
had been called a parricide by Theomnestus. (2) A 
certain Dionysius, also a witness of Lysitheus, was 
next prosecuted by Theomnestus for perjury ; and was 
sentenced to disfranchisement (§ 22). (3) The present 
speaker then brought his action against Theomnestus 
— which was thus the third of a series. 

The Athenian law against Defamation (/cafCTjyopca^) 
punished with a fine of 500 drachmas (about £20) 
vol. i u 

i. Agains 

2 9 o THE ATTIC ORATORS chap. 

Law the utterance of certain reproaches classed as airopp^ra 

Defama- (§2). To call a citizen a murderer, a striker of father 
or mother, or to charge him with having thrown away 
his shield in battle, were among these. 1 The present 
case had already been submitted to arbitrators (§ 6) ; 
it now came before an ordinary court, under the 
presidency of the Thsemothetae. 2 
Date, From § 4 the date is certain. The speaker had 

been thirteen years old in the time of the Tyrants 
(404-3 B.C.), and was now thirty-three : the speech 
belongs therefore to 384-3. 

x & ^ 

Analysis. Witnesses can scarcely be needed, since many of the 

judges themselves heard the libel when it was uttered in 
court. The prosecutor holds it mean and pettifogging (ave- 
XevOepov — fyiXohifcov) to go to law about abusive words ; but 
the taunt of parricide has driven him to it (§§ 1—3). He 
then proves by witnesses that he was only thirteen years 
old at the time of his father's death ; and that he was 
directly a sufferer by it, since he became the ward of his 
father's elder brother, Pantaleon, 3 who has defrauded him 
(§§ 4, 5). 

Theomnestus owns that he used the taunt; and the 
taunt has been proved false. But Theomnestus argues that 
it is not, in the view of the law, a libel. He said only 
u slew " : not " murdered." Is it lawful, then, the speaker 
asks, to reproach a man with " Hinging " away his shield ? 

1 See the speech §§ 6-9 : dvdpocpovos uncle or brother of the speaker ; 
— 7rarpa\oias — fi-qTpaXoias — pl\pat tt)v Sauppe assumes the former, which is 
&<nri5a. From Dem. in Eubul. § 30 more likely. The speech of Lysias 
it appears that to reproach a citizen /card IlavraXeovros {Frag, v.) may, 
with trading in the market-place (jty he thinks, have had this man for its 
€K ttjs ayopas ipyacriav) came under object. He conjectures that the father 
this law. of the speaker — who is said in § 27 to 

2 Meier and Schbmann, Att. Proc. have died for the democracy — may 
p. 67. have been that Leon of Salamis who 

3 The language in § 5 leaves it was put to death by the Thirty {Or. 
ambiguous whether Pantaleon was Att. n. 202). 


The law speaks only of " throwing." He gives further 
instances ; and then observes that, in the procedure of the 
Areiopagus, "slaying" is the term always used (§§ 6—14). 
Not content with this exposure of the quibble, he adds some 
illustrations from the old laws of Solon. These are full of 
obsolete words ; but their meaning is the same now as ever 
(§§ 15-20). 

If Theomnestus got satisfaction for having been charged 
with cowardice, much more should the plaintiff get satisfac- 
tion for having been charged with parricide. Theomnestus 
has had one favour done him already : — Dionysius, a brave 
man, has been his victim. For the plaintiff, what could be 
so shameful a reproach as to be accused of murdering his 
father — a man who, after serving the democracy all his life, 
died for it at the hands of the oligarchs ? His bravery has 
to this day its memorials in the temples of Athens ; even as 
the cowardice of Theomnestus and of Ms father have their 
memorials — in the temples of the enemy (§§ 21—29). The 
plea that the libel was uttered in anger is no defence at law 
(§ 30). Let the court bear in mind that he, who is now 
accused of murdering his own father, had in his youth 
impeached the Tyrants before the Areiopagus. Bemember- 
ing this, the laws and their oaths, let the judges stand by 
his father and him (§§ 31-32). 

If not one of the most artistic or the most The speech 
powerful, this is at least one of the most spirited manti- 
of the speeches of Lysias ; 1 and the doubt of its probably 
genuineness which seems to have existed in antiquity 2 genlline * 
must be explained— as in the case of the speech For 
the Invalid — by the slightness of the matter on which 

1 "Oratio prior in Theomnestuni 2 Harpocration adds el yvrjcnos to 

ad optimas Lysiae referenda," says his citation of the speech s. w. 

Francken : which is true so far, aTriWeiv, arropprjTa, 7re(pa(TfM€V7]s, iro- 

certainly, that ' ' indignationis et doK&KKrj : but not s. v V. imopKrjcrcu'Ta, 

iusti plena doloris est oratio " (Com- oUews. 
ment. Lys. p. 72). 


the case turned. The verbal quibble of Theomnestus 
is, indeed, treated at somewhat excessive length ; but 
the absurdity of the defence was perhaps felt to be 
among the best supports of the complaint. The 
conclusion of the speech bears the sure stamp of 
genuineness. It was a characteristic of Lysias that 
he loved to end, not with a rhetorical appeal, but 
with a definite point, put in the fewest and plainest 
words. Just such an ending we have here. There 
are besides in the speech several passages quite 
worthy of Lysias : — for instance, the opening remarks 
(§§ 1-3); — the reference to the fate of Dionysius 
(§§ 24, 25); — and the speaker's tribute to his own 
father (§§ 26-28). 
Reference The reference in § 31 is of some interest. The 

"tL 8 t0 speaker says that, immediately on reaching the age 
Tyrants." of eighteen _ that is, in 399 or 398 B.C. —he had 
prosecuted "the Thirty" before the Areiopagus. 
Now when the Thirty Tyrants left Athens in 403 
B.C., Pheidon and Eratosthenes alone of their number 
are known to have stayed at Athens. If the allusion 
here is to them, then we see that Eratosthenes escaped 
at least the penalty of death when impeached by 
Lysias in 403. 
The The so-called Second Speech Against Theomnestus 

[Or. xi.] is merely an epitome of the First, made by 
some grammarian later than Harpocration. 1 The 
epitome preserves for the most part the very 
words of its original, with which it corresponds 
as follows : — 

1 Who in no one of his six refer- nestus (see above) distinguishes it 
ences to the speech Against Theora- by a. 

1 Second 
Speech an 


Epitome §§ 1- 2 = Speech §§ 1-5 
„ §§ 3- 6 = „ §§ 6-20 
„ §§ 7-10= „ §§21-29 
„ §§11-12= „ §§30-32. 

II. Action by a Ward against a Guardian 

(81/crj €TTiTp07rr)s) 

Against Diogeiton. [Or. xxxil] — After describ- n. Against 


ing in detail the characteristics of Lysias, Dionysius 
illustrates his criticism by giving extracts from a 
Forensic, an Epideictic and a Deliberative Speech. 
The Olympiacus and the Defence of the Constitution 
(Or. xxxiv.) supply his examples of the two latter 
classes. The speech Against Diogeiton is chosen by Special 
him to represent the distinctive excellences of Lysias of this 
in the forensic style. 1 Photius, too, says expressly 
that it was among the most admired of all its author's 
works. 2 It belongs to a class of private speeches 
to which Dionysius gives a special title — the eW 
Tpo7TLfcoL, or those made in actions brought by wards 
against their guardians. 3 

Diodotus, an Athenian citizen, went to the coast Occasion 
of Asia as a hoplite under the command of Thrasyllus 
in 410 B.C., 4 — the year of the battle at Cyzicus. In 
408 he was killed at Ephesus. when the troops under 

1 Dionys. de Lys. CC. 20-27. jaovlov tovtwv avvdrjKTjv, /cat tt\v evpeaiv 

2 Phot. Cod. 262, davjid'^ovrai fi4v- re /cat rdi-iv r(bv evdvpiryxdTWv re Kal 
tol ye avrov aXXot re iroWol \670t /cat iivLxetp^dTWV. 

or) Kal 6 irpbs Atoyeiroj>a eirLTpoTrrjs. 
After praising it in detail, he con- 
cludes — /cat air\Cj$ 6\os 6 \6yos a^ios 

3 De Lys. c. 20, evri de 6 Xoyos e/c 
tCov ernTpoTTLK^v. 

Oavfidaai Kara re r& crx^ara /cat rd 4 Y\avKiinrov dpxovros, Dionys. Lys. 

vorjjiara Kal rd ovb^ara /cat tt]v evap- e. 21, in his vTodeais to the speech. 


Thrasyllus were defeated by the allies of Sparta, 1 
Before leaving Athens he had entrusted his two sons 
and his daughter to the care of Diogeiton, who was at 
once their uncle and their grandfather, since Diodotus 
had married his own niece, the daughter of Diogeiton. 
Eight years (§ 9) after his father's death — that is, 
in 400 B.C. — the eldest son attained his majority. 
Thereupon he was informed by Diogeiton that the 
property left by Diodotus was exhausted, and that 
he and his brother must shift for themselves. 

This action was brought — probably in 400 B.C. — 
by the eldest son. It is contended that Diodotus 
had left altogether 15 talents and 26 minae. Dio- 
geiton had at first represented the sum left as 
only 20 minae 30 staters, i.e. 26 minae altogether. 
But he had since confessed to 7 talents and 40 
minae additional, i.e. 8 talents 6 minae in all. His 
accounts, however, made him out to have spent 8 
talents 10 minae on his wards in eight years; so 
that, instead of having a balance to hand over to 
them, he was 4 minae out of pocket. 

The speech is directed to showing, first, that the 
property left by Diodotus was about double of that 
to which Diogeiton owned ; secondly, that his alleged 
outlay was incredible. 

The speaker is husband of the daughter of 

1 Xenoplion distinctly refers the clear. I once thought that in § 7 of 

battle at Ephesus, in which the the speech Ave might read 'Epeaq) 

troops of Thrasyllus were engaged, instead of 'E^ecrcp : since Eresus in 

to the archonship of Euctemon in Lesbos was in fact attacked by 

01. 93. 1, i.e. 408 B.C.: see Helleu. Thrasyllus in 411 B.C. (Time. vm. 

i. ii. 1 and 7. Blass {Alt. Ber. 100). But this, on the other hand, 

p. 620) puts the battle in 410 ; Grote does not agree with the tiri TXav- 

in 409 (vol. vni. p. 174). But the kIttwov dpxovros of Dionysius. 
statement of Xenoplion, at least, is 


Diodotus and brother-in-law of the plaintiff. An 
action of this kind was t/^t?7, — that is, the plaintiff 
named the sum which he claimed ; as Demosthenes, 
for instance, claimed ten talents from his guardians. 
It does not appear what precise sum was claimed 
from Diogeiton. The case would come before an 
ordinary court ; and, as a ward was suing his 
guardian, the president of the court would be the 
first Arch on. 

The speaker begins by explaining the necessity which Analys 
forces him to appear against a relative. His brothers-in-law, 
cruelly wronged, have besought his aid. Their grandfather 
Diogeiton had rejected all attempts at mediation ; they were 
therefore driven to seek a legal remedy for his flagrant abuse 
of his trust (§§ 1-3). 

The narrative of facts falls into two parts : — (i) The 
circumstances under which Diogeiton was appointed guardian, 
and his assumption of the office on the death of Diodotus : 
§§ 4-8. (ii) The disclosure made by him to his eldest 
ward on the latter coming of age, and the interview which 
followed between the young man's mother and her father 
Diogeiton: §§ 9-18. 

These facts having been proved by witnesses, the speaker 
turns to the case set up by the defence. The defendant (i) 
has denied receiving part of the property ; and (ii) professes 
to account for the rest: — § 20. This account is scrutinised 
in detail, and shown to be absurd. On the most liberal 
reckoning, a balance of six talents should have been forth- 
coming (§§ 19-29). 

Here the extract given by Dionysius ends. The 
statement of the defendant as to the amount which 
he had originally received must have been the next 
topic; followed, probably, by the peroration. 


The two- This speech — or fragment — is admirable for two 

fold merit p 

of the things : the compact marsnailmg oi a mass ot 
intricate details, so that the broad result is made 
triumphantly clear ; and the artistic treatment of 
character. Nothing could be better fitted to disarm 
prejudice, or even to create one favourable to the 
speaker, than the simple opening words. They show 
no bitterness against Diogeiton, — on the contrary, 
annoyance at having to appear against him — a 
necessity for which no one but himself is to blame. 
But the rhetorical skill is highest in the dramatic 
passage where the plaintiff's mother is brought in 
upbraiding her father Diogeiton with his purpose of 
disinheriting her sons, and the effect of the pleading 
on those who heard it is described (§§ 12-18). 

III. Trial of a Claim to Property (pLahi/caaia) 

in. on On the Property of Eraton. [Or. xvn. 1 ] — This 

perty of is the only extant speech of Lysias in a diadikasia,— 
i.e. in a case of a disputed claim (ScaSUao-fjia, § 10) 
to property either between tw T o private persons or 
between a private person and the State. Here the 
dispute lies between a private claimant and the 

The speaker's grandfather had lent two talents 

1 The title in the MSS. is irepl Sauppe follows Schott (0. A. x. 

hf]^o(jiwv ddLKyj/jLarcov. Reiske (Or. p. 110) in changing ddiKrj^drcov to 

Att. v. 588) thinks that this title xPVf l ^ T ^ 1 ' an d so prints it in his 

is common to our speech and to the edition ; but this is unsatisfactory. 

next {ire pi cfy^eiVews twv rod ^lklov Hoelscher (ap. Blass, Att. Ber. 

dbe\<pov) : and that it may have p. 628) suggests irpbs to d-qubaiov 

stood originally thus — AT2I0T irepl twv 'Epdrwi/os xPVIudrcov (better 

1IEPI TON nPOS TO AHMOSIOX irepl tQu 'E. X P- ^pos to d.) ; and this 

AAIKHMATflX AOrOI. Dobree would be a better title, 
concurs in this view (Adv. i. p. 233). 


to Eraton, who died without having repaid them. 
Eratons three sons, Erasiphon, Eraton, and Erasi- 
stratus, failed to pay the interest. The speaker's 
father therefore brought an action against Erasistratus, 
the only one of the three brothers who was at Athens; 
and obtained an order for the payment of the entire 
debt, principal and interest. 

His father having died about this time, the 
speaker, in right of the verdict, took possession of 
certain lands of Erasistratus at Sphettus, and claimed 
at law certain other lands at Cicynna, which the 
representatives of Erasiphon, the eldest brother, 
refused to give up to him. 

Meanwhile — for what reason is not stated — all the 
property which had belonged to the elder Eraton 1 was 
confiscated by the State. The speaker was obliged to 
give up the lands at Sphettus, which he had already 
for two years been letting to tenants (§ 5), and to 
withdraw his claim to the others. 

He now brings an action against the Treasury for 
the partial satisfaction of his claim upon the property 
of Eraton. The whole of this property was (he says) 
insufficient to satisfy his claim. Yet he is ready to 
give up two-thirds of it to the State ; and rates the 
remaining third, which he demands for himself, at 1 5 
minae (§ 7) ; — i.e. one-eighth of the sum originally lent 
by his father to Eraton. 

The case is heard by an ordinary court, of which 
the fiscal board of syndici (§ 10) were presidents. 
Since the action against Erasistratus fell in the 

1 In § 6 'EpaaKpuvTos must be altered to 'Ep&rwvos (meaning the elder 
Eraton), as appears from §§ 4 f. 


Date. archonship of Xenaenetus (§ 3), i.e. in 400 B.C., and 
three years had elapsed, since (§ 5), the date is 397 
B.C., of which the winter months had. already passed 


Analysis. The plaintiff begins by expressing a fear that the judges 

give him credit for powers of speech which he does not 
possess — an exordium which suggests that he was at least 
in some way distinguished (§ 1). He then gives a narrative,, 
in three parts, of the facts just stated, witnesses being called 
at the close of each part : (i) § 2 : (ii) § 3 : (iii) §§ 4—9. He 
ends by simply asking for a verdict (§ 10). 


for suppos- 
ing this to 
be an 


No ground In this short speech there is no argument : th 
proofs are all " inartificial," aTeyyoi Trio-Tew. i.e. de- 
rived directly from witnesses and documents. But 
there is certainly no reason for suspecting that we 
have here merely an epitome of a longer oration, like 
the so-called "Second" speech against Theomnestus. 1 
Short as it is, the speech is in every respect complete 
and clear. There is nothing of that crowding which 
is generally apparent in a summary ; the whole is on 
a small scale, but the symmetry of the parts is perfect. 
Besides, each section of the narrative is followed by a 
short recapitulation (§§ 3, 4, 10). An epitomist 
would have left out epitomes. 

IV. Answer to a Special Plea (777069 


iv. Against Against Pancleon. [Or. xxiii.] — The speaker 
had formerly indicted Pancleon, a fuller living at 

1 Francken {Comment. Lys. p. 123) potius excerptcvm esse ex gennina 
says "probabile milii videtur. esse Lysiaca " ; and at p. 238 he describes 
banc orationem commentarium, a ut it as "epitome." 


Athens (§ 2), for some offence not specified ; and 
believing him to be a resident-alien, had summoned 
him before the Polemarch, who heard cases in which 
foreigners were concerned. Pancleon thereupon put 
in a " plea to the jurisdiction," on the ground that he 
was a Plataean by birth, and, as such, entitled at 
Athens to the rights of an Athenian citizen : and 
that, therefore, the action ought not to have been 
brought before the Polemarch. This plea (Trapaypa^) 
gave rise to a previous trial to decide whether the 
action, in its original form, could be brought into 
court (§ 5). In such a case the first speech was 
usually made by the maintainer of the special plea : ] 
here it is evidently made by the opponent. 2 The 
date is uncertain. 

With a promise that he will be brief, the speaker comes Anaiy* 
to the facts. Pancleon, on being summoned before the 
Polemarch, stated himself to be a Plataean by birth, son of 
Hipparmodorus, and enrolled in the Attic deme of Deceleia. 
On inquiry, 3 the speaker learned that Pancleon was in fact 
a runaway slave of a Plataean named Mcomedes. A few 
days afterwards, Nicomecles actually claimed Pancleon as his 
slave ; but the latter was rescued by a gang of bullies (j& 5- 
12). He had once before been brought before the Polem- 

1 See e.g. the speeches of Demo- are curious. The speaker goes to 
sthenes For Phormio and Against look for the Deceleia men at a 
Pantaenetus, and that of Isocrates barber's shop in the Hermae street 
Against Callimachus. (leading from the Old to the New 

2 Meier and Schumann, Att. Proa. Market-place), a regular resort for 
p. 648. The speaker makes a full the men of that deme — to Kovpelov 
statement of the facts. He would to irapa tovs 'Epuas Iva oi Ae/ce\e?s 
have assumed a general knowledge of TrpoaQoiT&aiv (§ 3). He seeks the 
the case on the part of the judges, Plataeans, again, at the cheese - 
and would have addressed himself market in the Old Agora — hearing 
rather to particular points, if Pan- that on the first of every month eiteio-e 
eleon had spoken before him. avWeyovrat oi JlXaraicLS (§ 6). 

3 The particulars of the inquiry 


arch by a certain Aristodicus, and had blustered, but had 
eventually given in. Before doing so, he had withdrawn for 
a time to Thebes — a signal proof that he was no Plataean 
(§§ 13-15). If the judges bear in mind these plain facts 
the speaker is confident of a verdict (g 16). 

As in the last speech, so here, all is narrative ; 
there is no argument but the logic of facts. These 
are not stated with the same conciseness and clear- 
ness as in the former case ; but there is no better 
ground here than there for suspecting, with Francken, 
the work of an epitomist. 1 

Miscellaneous Writings 

1. To his Companions : a Complaint of Slanders. 
[Or. viil] — A friend addresses friends who have 
wronged him — states his grievances — and formally 
renounces their acquaintance. 

Analysis. The opportunity is favourable for approaching this pain- 

ful but unavoidable subject. He has before him both those 
whom he wishes to accuse and those whom he wishes to 
witness the accusation (§§ 1—2). His so-called friends have 
spoken of him as having thrust Iris society upon them 
(§§ 3—8). They have also persuaded him to buy an unsound 
horse, and have since taken part with the seller (§§ 9-13). 
Lastly, they have charged him with inciting others to slander 
them (§§ 14-17). For all these reasons he renounces their 
friendship. He will be safe now — for they attack only their 
friends (§§ 18-20). 

1 Comment. Lys. p. 238 " cxcerpta refictam." Dobree notices, and ap- 

ex Lysiaca." At p. 164 lie says only pears to endorse, a doubt of its 

"equidem spondere ausim, banc genuineness ; but without assigning 

Lysiacam esse ; sed ant non satis ab grounds (Adv. I. 245). 
auctore aut satis superque ab aliis 


It is scarcely worth while to inquire how this 
curiously absurd composition first came among the 
works of Lysias. As it is too uniformly dreary to be 
mistaken for a joke, not even a grammarian s concep- 
tion of his sportive style can explain the imputation. 
The person who could thus take leave of his friends 
is certainly hard to imagine ; but it is perhaps equally 
difficult — notwithstanding the amplitude of fatuity 
conventionally supposed in "the late sophist" — to 
fancy any one taking such a subject for an exercise. 1 

2. The Eroticus in Plato's Phaedrus (pp. 230 E- TheEroti- 
234 c). — Plato makes Phaedrus read to Socrates a phaedrus. 
speech of Lysias in wdiich the claims of the non-lover 
are urged as against those of the lover. Even to ask 
whether this speech is or is not an actual work of 
Lysias might seem at first sight to argue a want of 
sympathy with the broad literary characteristics of 
the dialogues. This speech of Lysias, it might be 
assumed, is as much Plato's own creation as the 
funeral speech by Aspasia which Socrates repeats in 
the Menexenus, — or as the discourses put into the 
mouths of the sophists in the Protagoras, — or as those 
delivered by Aspasia, Agathon, Aristophanes and 
others in the Symposium. The gravity of the imita- 
tion is, of course, perfect ; but only a matter-of-fact 
reader could be misled by it. 

1 Benseler — a very close observer least one definite mark of a post- 

of the style of Lysias — points out Lysian style (Bens, de Matu, pp. 

that in this Eighth Oration there 182 f.). In § 17, again, one may 

are hardly any examples of hiatus, recognise very distinctly the ring 

and that such as do occur can of the scholastic rhetoric — (^/xrjv yap 

easily be removed — e.g. in § 7 airoderos v/juv ehcu <pi\o$, k.t.X. Some 

by reading evvoovvres for evvot phrases in §§ 2, 14 again — evavrlov 

ovres. Here, then — in this marked tt)s eXiridos — bderocjodrov VTrepelberbbC 

avoidance of hiatus — we have at e^ — are not like the Attic of Lysias. 


1. Pre- 
for a 

This is probably the light in which the question 
would appear at first to most readers of Plato. But 
a nearer examination of the Phaedrus brings out two 
points which seem to distinguish this case in an im- 
portant way from cases apparently analogous. 

The first point is the elaborate dramatic prepa- 
ration made for such a recital of the speech as 
shall be verbally exact. Phaedrus is asked to repeat 
it from memory — makes excuses — is pressed ; and 
presently it turns out that he has the book with him. 
Now if the speech was merely Plato's imitation 
of Lysias, surely this preface would be somewhat 
heavy — inartistic, indeed, as forcing attention too 
strongly upon the illusion. It is perfectly fitting, 
on the other hand, as the dramatist's apology for 
bringing into his own work of art so large a piece of 
another's work. 1 There is surely a special emphasis 
here : — 

Phaedr. What do you mean, Socrates ? How can you 
imagine that I, who am quite unpractised, can remember or 
do justice to an elaborate work, which the greatest rheto- 
rician of the day spent a long time in composing ? Indeed, 
I cannot ; I would give a great deal if I could. 

Socr. I believe that I know Phaedrus about as well as 
I know myself, and I am very sure that he heard the words 
of Lysias, not once only, but again and again he made him 
say them, and Lysias was very willing to gratify him ; at 
last, when nothing else would satisfy him, he got hold of the 
book, and saw what he wanted — this was his morning's oc- 
cupation — and then when he was tired with sitting, he went 

1 Phaedr. p. 228. It may be same emphasis which I recognise in 
noticed that at p. 243 c the speech the opening scene, as 6 iie rod (3i(3\lov 
of Lysias is designated, with the prjdeis. 


out to take a walk, not until, as I believe, he had simply 
learned by heart the entire discourse, which may not have 
been very long... Therefore, Phaedrus, as he will soon speak 
in any case, beg him to speak at once. 

Phaeclr. As you don't seem very likely to let me off 
until I speak in some way, the best thing that I can do is to 
speak as I best may. 

Socr. That is a very true observation of yours. 

Phaeclr. I will do my best, for believe me, Socrates, I 
did not learn the very words ; no, but I have a general 
notion of what he said, and will repeat concisely, and in 
order, the several arguments by which the case of the non- 
lover was proved to be superior to that of the lover : let me 
begin at the beginning. 

Socr. Yes, my friend ; but you must first of all show what 
you have got in your left hand under your cloak, for that 
roll, as I suspect, is the actual discourse. JSTow, much as I 
love you, I would not have you suppose that I am going to 
have your memory exercised upon me, if you have Lysias 
himself here. 1 

The second point to be observed is the closeness 2. chamc- 
of the criticism made by Socrates on the speech — criticism. 
corresponding to the elaborateness of the contrivance 
for an accurate report of it. General criticism of 
expression or of moral drift would have been per- 
fectly in place even if the speech had been fictitious. 
But detailed criticism — recognition, on the one hand, 
of " clearness," " roundness," " polish " in every phrase 
— on the other hand, ridicule of the chaos of topics, of 
the repetitions, and especially of the beginning which 
is no beginning — would this have much meaning or 
force if the satirist were merely analysing his own 
handiwork ? 

1 }>p. 234 e-235 A. (From the Translation by Professor Jowett.) 


Socr. Well, but are you and I expected to praise the 
sentiments of the author, or only the clearness, and round- 
ness, and accuracy, and tournure of the language?. . .1 thought, 
though I speak under correction, that he repeated himself 
two or three times, either from want of words or from want 
of pains. 1 

Again, further on : — 

Socr. Bead, that I may have his exact words. 

Phaedr. {reading). " You know my views of our common 
interest ; and I do not think that I ought to fail in the object 
of my suit because I am not your lover, for lovers repent of 
the kindnesses which they have shown, when their love is 

Socr. Here he appears to have done just the reverse of 
what he ought : for he has begun at the end, and is swim- 
ming on his back through the flood of words to the place of 
starting. . .Then as to the other topics — are they not a 
mass of confusion ? Is there any principle in them ? Why 
should the next topic or any other topic follow in that order ? 
I cannot help fancying in my ignorance that he wrote 
freely off just what came into his head. . . r 

Then comes the comparison of the speech to the 
epitaph on Midas, and Phaeclrus can bear it no 
longer : — 

You are making fun of that oration of ours. 
Socr. Well, I will say no more about your friend, lest I 
should give offence to you. . . . 3 

It is surely clear that the speech of Lysias is both 
so introduced and so handled by Plato as to stand on 
a wholly different ground from such dramatic fictions 
as those in the Protagoras, where the sophists are 

1 p. 235 e. 2 p. 263 E. 3 p. 264 p. 


persons of the drama, imitated in their general method 
and style of discourse ; or from the fiction of Aspasia's 
authorship in the Menexenus — a fiction, indeed, which 
Plato has taken so little trouble to keep up that he 
makes her allude to the Peace of Antalcidas. 1 It- 
would not be much to the purpose to analyse the 
composition of the Eroticus, or to show that it bears 
the special marks of the style of Lysias. 2 This could 
prove nothing. Plato could have imitated Lysias, if 
he had chosen, without much clanger of being found 
out by us. It is the evidence of the dialogue, not the 
evidence of the speech itself, which is important. 

Lysias is the earliest known writer of Erotic dis- 
courses ; 3 and he is in a twofold sense the object of 
Plato's attack in the Phaedrus. The primary subject 
of that dialogue is the antithesis between the false 
and the true Ehetoric. The true Ehetoric springs 
from Dialectic, and Dialectic from love of the ideas. 
Hence the secondary subject of the dialogue is the 
antithesis between false and true Love. Lysias is 
by his profession a representative for Plato of the 
false Ehetoric ; by his Eroticus in particular he is the 
representative of the false Eros. Plato could have 
imitated well enough for his purpose the general 
rhetorical characteristics of Lysias ; but he embodied 

1 Menex. p. 245 C. Kal ttoWcl dyada avrois ev^ovrat. In 

2 Blass (Att. Per. p. 422) points such a piece as this — written very 
out that, plain as the style of the likely, as Grote suggests {Plato 1. 
Eroticus is on the whole, there is 254), simply for the amusement of 
rather more rhetorical ornament of friends — it was natural enough that 
the type made popular by Gorgias Lysias should have drawn upon the 
than Lysias usually employed ; see \r]Kvdia of the Sicilian school rather 
e.g. p. 233 e eneivoi yap kclI ay air r\- more than he would have allowed 
G-oucri Kal aKo\ovdr)<jov<jL kclI eiri rets himself to do in a graver performance. 
dvpas rj^ovai \ Kal fidXiara i)crdr)<roi>- 3 Dr. Thompson, Phaedr. p. 151, 
rat Kal ovk eXax'-O'Trjv x&P LV ^crovrat note 3. 




the Eroticus in his dialogue, because, further, he 
wished Lysias to speak for himself upon a special 
subject. 1 


Three hundred and thirty-five fragments of every 
kind, from speeches, letters or unknown works, are 
arranged and examined by Sauppe, Oratores Attici, 
vol. II. pp. 170-216. Of this number, 252 represent 
127 speeches of known title. Six of the 127 are 
represented by fragments more considerable than the 
rest. These six demand a few words of notice. 


In a Public Cause 

1. Against Cinesias [lxxiii. lxxiv. 
143 in Sauppe]. 


1 In the foregoing discussion I have 
purposely abstained from attempting 
to examine several arguments, turning 
on more or less fine points of style, 
which have been brought forward on 
each side. The fact that we have to 
do with such a literary artist as Plato 
seems to minimise the value of any 
argument which might be founded 
on the internal evidence of the speech. 
As to external evidence, we know 
only (1) that Dionysius and the 
pseudo - Plutarch mention ipcoriKoi 
among the works of Lysias ; (2) that 
this particular ipcortKos was thought 
really his by Diogenes Laertius (in. 
25), by Hermeias p. 63 (quoted in 
^pengel's crvvaywyi] rexv&v, p. 126) ; 
and (as Dr. Thompson points out, 
Phacdr. p. 184, Appendix in.) by 
Cornelius Fronto — who took it as one 
of his models in his extant epuriKos 
to Marcus Aurelius. I would add 
that the reference of Hermogenes 
(irepl id. I. 12, Sp. Eh. Gr. it. 331) 

makes it plain that he thought the 
epcoriKos authentic. The evidence of 
the dialogue in which the speech is 
set must decide the question. This 
is, to my mind, conclusive for the 

Modern critics have been much 
divided. Among those who believe 
the Eroticus genuine are Sauppe 
{Or. Att. II. p. 209), Spengel {aw. 
rexv&v, p. 126), Blass (Att. Per. pp. 
416-423 — where L. Schmidt is quoted 
as agreeing) — and Dr. Thompson in 
his edition of the Phacdrus : see esp. 
Appendix i. Among those who 
regard the discourse as fictitious are 
Stallbaum {Lysiacct ad illustrandas 
Phaedri Platonis origines, Leipz. 
1851); C. F. Hermann [Gcsammdtc 
AbJiandlungen, pp. 1 if.) ; K. 0. 
Miiller (Hist. Gr. Lit. c. 35, vol. n. 
p. 140 ed. Donaldson) ; and Professor 
Jowett, in his Introduction to the 
dialogue (Translation, vol. I. p. 553). 


In Private Causes 

2. Against Tisis [cxix. 231, 232]. 

3. For Pherenicus [cxx. 233, 234]. 

4. Against the Sons of Hippocrates [lxii. 124]. 

5. Against Archebiades [xix. 44, 45]. 

6. Against Aeschines [i. 1-4]. 

1. Against Cinesias. — Harpocration mentions l. Against 
two speeches of Lysias against Cinesias. One of 
these was probably identical with that speech of 
Lysias " For Phanii\s " from which Athenaeus (xiii. 
p. 551 d) gives an extract Phanius had been ac- 
cused by Cinesias of proposing an unconstitutional 
measure {irapavoficov). The short extract in question 
is a personal attack upon Cinesias, whose impiety, 
and unfitness, therefore, to be the champion of the 
laws, are set forth. He is described as having be- 
longed to a club the members of which styled them- 
selves fcafcoSaLfiovMTTai — " the Mephistophelians " — in 
ridicule of societies who chose carefully euphemistic 
names. 1 As the latter held their meeting's on the first 
of the month, the seventh, or some such auspicious 
day, so this society made a point of meeting on one of 
the black days of the calendar (airofypaies rjfiepai,). 
Cinesias is satirised by Aristophanes, partly for his 
dithyrambs, partly for his atheism; 2 and enjoyed the 
distinction of having a whole comedy written about 
him by Strattis. 3 

1 Such as the vovix-qviaffTal men- 2 Ar. Ran. 366 : Eccl. 330 : Lys. 

tioned in Frag. 143 — duri vov/ut]- 838, 852. 

vlclcttCjv KaKo5ai.jbLovL<jTas <7<pi(TLv clvtols 3 Meineke, Com. Graec. I. pp. 

Tovvofia dejuevoi. 227 f. 



The next four fragments have all been preserved 
by Dionysius ; who quotes the first of them in com- 
paring Lysias with Demosthenes — the other three, in 
contrasting Lysias with Isaeus. 

2. Against 2. Against Tisis. — Tisis, a young Athenian, had 
quarrelled with one Archippus at the palaestra ; had 
treacherously invited him to supper afterwards ; and 

then tied him to a pillar and flogged him. Archippus 
brought an action for assault and battery (aUlas 
BUT)) ; and the present speech was written for him by 
Lysias. The extract given by Dionysius * contains the 
narrative of the facts, which he^ compares with the 
similar narrative in the speech of Demosthenes against 
Conon (§§ 3-9). The critic remarks that to other 
excellences Demosthenes joined those which dis- 
tinguished the narrative style of Lysias — clearness 
and naturalness. 

3. For 3. For Pherenicus. — This fragment is concerned 
with historical names. Plutarch 2 mentions Pelopidas, 
Androcleidas, Pherenicus as the principal of the The- 
bans who fled to Athens when the Cadmeia was seized 
by Phoebidas in 382 B.C. It appears that Andro- 
cleidas had died soon after their arrival, and that 
Pherenicus had taken possession of his property. He 
was sued for it by a rival claimant, probably also a 
Theban; and the present speech was made in his 
defence by an Athenian citizen, who had been hos- 
pitably received at Thebes by Cephisodotus, father 
of Pherenicus, in the exile of 404 B.C. Dionysius 
expressly says that the speech was made for Phereni- 
cus as for a %evos — which is against the improbable 

i Be Demosth. c. 11. 2 PcIo P- c - 5 - 



statement of Aristeicles l that the Athenian franchise 
had been given to the Theban exiles on this occasion. 
As the exiles were restored to Thebes in 379, this 
speech must belong to the year 381 or 380, and is 
therefore the latest known work of Lysias. Quoting 
a passage of the same kind from a lost oration of 
Isaeus 2 — in which the advocate explains the motives 
of gratitude which have prompted him to come for- 
ward — Dionysius compares it with this extract. In 
Isaeus, we hear the rhetorician ; here it is the private 
friend who recounts in the simplest but most telling 
words the great services which Pherenicus and his 
father had rendered to the Athenian refugees. 

4. Against the Sons of Hippocrates . — A guardian 4. Against 
is here defending himself against a charge of malver- f Hi PP o- 
sation in his trust which had been brought against 


him by his wards. Dionysius 3 places an extract from 
the opening of this speech beside a defence written 
by Isaeus for a guardian ; and remarks upon the dif- 
ference between the styles in which they respectively 
resent the imputation. The client of Isaeus uses 
elaborate phrases ; the client of Lysias speaks like a 
plain man, expressing a natural sense of hardship 
at the recompense which his wards are giving 

5. Against Archebiades. — A young Athenian 5. Against 
citizen who has lately succeeded to a fortune by his kades. 
father s death is sued by Archebiades for a debt alleged - 
to have been contracted by his father. The point of 
the contrast which Dionysius 4 illustrates by an ex- 

1 Panath. p. 300 c. and the two next Fragments, see vol. 

2 vwepEvfiddovs, els ekevdepiav dcpal- II. J)\). 279 f., 365 f. 

peats. Dionys. de Isae. c. 6. On this s Be Isaeo, c. 6. 4 lb. c. 10. 



tract from this speech is the same as in the two 
last cases. Isaeus, too, had once occasion to write 
for a young client inexperienced in lawsuits. Yet 
even here he could not prevent his artificialism from 
showing itself. Lysias, on the contrary, has given 
to the life the character of a man who was never 
in a law-court before, who does not deserve to be 
there now, and who hopes never to be there 
6. Against 6. Against Aeschines. — The Aeschines in question 
here is that disciple whom Socrates once advised "to 
borrow from himself by shortening his commons." l 
Athenaeus 2 quotes a curious passage from this speech 
by way of exemplifying the truth that philosophers 
are not always philosophers. "Who would have 
supposed/' he says, " that Aeschines the Socratic had 
been such a character as Lysias makes him in one 
of his speeches on contracts ? " (iv roU row <rvfi/3o\a,LG)v 
\6yoLs). The " contract " to which the speech cited 
by Athenaeus referred was a debt, due from Aeschines 
to the speaker. It is not clear, as Blass remarks, how 
Aeschines came to be plaintiff instead of defendant 
in the action ; that he was so, however, is plain from 
the opening words. Aeschines had applied for a 
loan to help him to set up in business as a distiller 
of perfumes (re^VTjv fjLvpeyJriKrjv Karaa/cevd^adat). Hie 
speaker had lent him the money, "'reflecting that 
this Aeschines had been a disciple of Socrates, and 
was in the habit of discoursing impressively concern- 

1 Diog. Laert. it. 62, <paai 5' avrQ ctltlwv vcpaipovvra. 
\eyeiv'Zo3KpdT7)v,€ireL^riirep€ine^eTOV'7rb " 2 XIII. p. 611 I). 

irevlas, irap' 1 eavrov hav ei^edddirGiv 

L YSIA S — WORKS 3 1 1 

ing Justice and Virtue." Then come some scandalous 
stories about Aeschines. The genuineness of the 
speech has been elaborately attacked by Welcker, 1 
who takes it to be the work of a later rhetorician, 
inspired by hatred of philosophers generally. He 
thinks it too coarsely defamatory for Lysias. This 
kind of argument is scarcely satisfactory when not 
supported by particular evidence ; and in this case 
there is none. Sauppe and Blass seem right, then, 
in holding the fragment to be genuine. The broad 
comedy of the latter part is remarkable. 2 

Letters are mentioned among the writings of Letters. 
Lysias by Dionysius, by the pseudo- Plutarch, and 
by Suidas. 3 The last-named speaks of seven; one, 
"a business letter" (irpa^fiaTifcriv), is generally identified 
with the letter to Polycrates cited by Harpocration. 
In the other six may probably be included the letter 
(or address) in the Phaedrus ; the Eroticus quoted 
by Harpocration ; and the letters to Asybarus and 
Metaneira, A few short sentences are all that re- 
main. But two of these are interesting ; each belongs, 
apparently, to a letter written after some coolness or 

1 The substance of his view, as against the Socratic. Aeschines was 
explained in an essay, Unachtheit cler one of the commonest names. Dio- 
Rcde des Lysias gcgen den SoJcratiJcer genes Laertius (it. 64) mentions eight 
Aeschines, is given by Sauppe, 0. A. bearers of the name who were all 
11. p. 170. more or less distinguished. The 

2 Besides this fragment — to which speech irepi avKOfpavrlas which Dio- 
Athenaeus (xiii. p. 611 d) gives the genes notices in the same chapter as 
title, irpbs Alax^W T ° v ^ukpcltlkov having been written by Lysias against 
Xpews — two others are cited by the the Socratic Aeschines is very likely 
lexicographers : viz. (1) /car' Alax^ov that from which our fragment comes : 
rrepl tt)s drj/bLeiKreus tQ>v 'ApicrTocpditovs see its opening words — vofiifa 5' ovk 
Xpf]^rwv : Harpocr. s.v. Xurpoi : and au padioos avrbv erepav ravTTjS (5lkt]v) 
(2) irpbs Alax^W /3Xa/3r;s : Bekker avKotpavTiodearepau e^evpeiv. 

anecd. p. 132, 23. Sauppe thinks 3 Dionys. Be Lys. c. 3, cf. c. 1 : 

that neither of the two latter was [Pint.] Fit, Lys. : Suidas s.v. Avaias. 


misunderstanding with a friend ; and each of them 
shows in the writer a characteristically eager warmth 
towards friends. 1 

1 The two fragments are nos. 260, ttjv 'E/u7redoK\eovs e%^pa^ tcrxOccu 

261 in Sauppe, 0. A. n. p. 210. In 5ia<TT7)<rai, i.e. "that not the Principle 

the second there is a striking phrase : of Enmity itself could have parted 

— "I thought I was knitted to you us." 
by such friendship " — ware /jltj5' av 


Printed by R. & R. Clark, Edinburgh, 

This preservation copy 

was created, printed, and bound 

at Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., 

in compliance with U.S. copyright law. 

The paper used meets the requirements 

of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 

(Permanence of Paper).